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.
Delete - as per AFD outcomes, this class of article is normally deleted as being non-notable. This one is no different. Nothing to say for itself. Atlas-maker (talk) 20:31, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I've added some references to the article. (as I am not a regular user (yet) I hope I did it properly). If more information is needed Please let me know. ZVL is one of the waterpolo powerhouses in Holland. The team competes in the European competition for several years already. triple cup and 2x national final. With this history (and expected future) I think a wiki article is in order Grasyerba (talk) 08:08, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I've tried to research some other pages on Wiki to see what kind of info I needto add. I checked a couple of other waterpolo clubs as ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donk_Gouda ) and ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CE_Mediterrani ) but as these pages are correct, why is it that we need to submit extra info? The link on Mediterrani even doesn't work (but as a waterpolo enthousiast I know they are legit). It feels like there are different guidelines? I can ad the site of Manchester ( http://www.manchesterwaterpoloclub.co.uk/news.html ) or the LEN ( last year, poule C http://www.len.eu/Disciplines/water-polo/clubs-pages/euro-league-women.aspx ) but what else do you actually need? a link to the dutch Wiki site? Their is an extensive page of ZVL. This weekend the team won the dutch ManMeer!Cup for the second time in a row, third time in their (short) extinction ( http://www.waterpoloworld.nl/Nieuws/tabid/66/ArticleId/6711/news.aspx )
Meaby I do not understand properly what you are looking for in independent sources? Waterpolo.nl and woaterpoloworld.com are independent from ZVL, as is youtube and NOS (national broadcasting). And lot of sources are in dutch, is that the problem? But then again, for the Spanish teams they are in Spanish? Grasyerba (talk) 10:09, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Garsyerba, please do add more sources. The sources can be in Nederlands or in Spanish, they do not need to be in English. From quick review in Google news and in Google, the team seems notable, there is coverage. --doncram18:43, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Commnet - I'm not sure, if there are some sources in Dutch or Spanish language media, but at least not in English (as per my attempt to find some). There are few sources, provided above by creator of the article. I'll not look up into Wikipedia articles. First source, manchesterwaterpoloclub doesn't even mention ZVL once. Second source, len.eu, is about some game schedule and it does mention ZVL, but only one time. Third source, waterpoloworld.nl is perhaps about the same game, and mentions ZVL twice (definitively, not substantial). Anupmehra -Let's talk!00:27, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello User talk:Anupmehra. I read your reaction. As per ManchesterWaterpolo: they refer to ZVL Leiden just as "Leiden" in their post of Wednesday 27 November, 2013. It is about last years round. So indeed only mentioned once. Year before ZVL played at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CW_Dos_Hermanas (why is this page ok contrary to the one of ZVL?) which is also mentioned on their page [1]
LEN page is indeed very brief. They only mention teams at the tournaments. ZVL also played in the 2011-2012 season LEN in Sevilla [2]
As per waterpolo world: You can see that at this moment ZVl is playing play off [3] for the national title
A search at google with "ZVl leiden" indeed shows a lot of dutch pages. Also al lot of directions to LEN tournaments. Also this french page [4]
Also, if you check out flickr [5] you will find photo's of our teams.
All in all there is a lot of documentation to be found. This team is already for a couple of years competiting at the highest level in Holland, and in the top 12 of Europe. They list 5 internationals in their ranks. As mentioned, I see teams on wiki with less information and i do believe they should be here on wiki with other teams that i mentioened before. After all there is a referal on other Wiki page to ZVL as well?. Grasyerba (talk) 08:08, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - None of the above provided sources are having substantial coverage of the subject to establish notability as per Wikipedia general notability guideline. Creator either, is unaware of Wikipedia notability standard for inclusion or unable to provide any sources to satisfy Wikipedia general notability guideline. This non-notable article should be deleted. Anupmehra -Let's talk!22:43, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Admin Note, the tone of some of the comments in this AFD are pushing the lines of the civility policy. Participants are reminded to assume good faith and not to bite the newbies. Lankiveil(speak to me)23:03, 2 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Today ZVL became dutch champion. I do not know what else I can add to this discussion Grasyerba (talk) 23:21, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Keep - there seems to be no doubt that this is a top-level team in a recognised sport = notable. There could admittedly be more references, and if Grasyerba stays around (which is probably doubtful after this experience: apologies, Grasyerba) they could doubtless add more, but those already given are adequate (in my view). @Anupmehra, I'm assuming good faith (with some difficulty) but I'm embarrassed on behalf of Wikipedia by your attitude.Eustachiusz (talk) 01:00, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I'm sorry, but a better reason for deleting this article would be nice. A fair amount of independent articles about this film, a couple even being cited here, do exist. The info should be included somewhere. 和DITOREtails20:21, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sanjay Leela Bhansali. Have been reading stories about this film long since Bhansali made Hum Dil De Chuke Sanam in 1999.ref 14 years and i guess every actor must have been rumoured to have been cast in this film. Only constant has been Bhansali and given his style of work there is no guarantee it might happen even now. Although 14 years of news-making can flesh out a good length of article, that all would be trivial. If someone wishes, they might work on it in their own userspace. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 18:57, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Might be a good idea for a redirect then-its like how long tons of movies are in production-Benjamin Button was for a while. So was Tangled! Wgolf (talk) 19:12, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. By default I keep the article, and also per WP:BOLD I will move it, everybody is welcome to revert the move. I do not see any consensus for the redirects at the moment.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:13, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I perfectly understand that the article needs more sources and, probably, a different name ("2007–08" might be inconsistent*), but the party existed. In 2007 the New Italian Socialist Party (NPSI) split over its participation in the "Socialist Constituent Assembly" (CS), which led in 2007–2008 to the formation of the Socialist Party (PS), now Italian Socialist Party (PSI). The faction led by De Michelis and Del Bue, who lost to Caldoro's in an internal struggle, initially continued to use the NPSI banner, until it decided to adpot the name "Socialist Party", coherently with the name of the party which would emerge from the CS, albeit with a different symbol. As such the "Socialist Party–De Michelis" is cited in the article on the PS/PSI. --Checco (talk) 09:23, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply] *=The founding congress of the PS/PSI was held in July 2008, thus the formal merger of PS–De Michelis into the PS/PSI happened at that point, hence "–08".
Utente:Bronzino, 16 July 2007: Per quanto abbia provato a sviscerare la questione, non sono riuscito a capire se il Nuovo Psi legittimo sia quello di Del Bue o quello di Caldoro. Il primo continua a usare nuovopsi.com, il secondo ha creato il sito partitosocialista.org. Cosa strana, poi, nessuno finora ha voluto portare l'altro in tribunale per chiarire la questione, sicché a tutt'oggi ci sono 2 Npsi. [...]
Utente:87.9.164.50, 6 October 2007: Il nome Partito Socialista Nuovo PSI rimane a Caldoro di contro il simbolo và a De Michelis il cui gruppo si chiama Partito socialista PS. [6][7]
Utente:Whit&Black, 28 August 2008: Segnalo che il "Partito Socialista Nuovo PSI" nato nel 2001 ed il "Nuovo PSI" di Caldoro sono soggetti diversi. Nel 2007 il "Partito Socialista Nuovo PSI" era diviso in due sulla decisione di aderire alla "Costituente Socialista" di Boselli e si crearono forti tensioni, fino ad arrivare alla celebrazione di due congressi con l'elezione di ben due segretari. La soluzione fu la divisione del partito: la denominazione "Partito Socialista" rimase a Del Bue e De Michelis, che aderirono alla "Costituente'"; la denominazione "Nuovo PSI" rimase a Caldoro e Barani, che aderirono al PdL. Ciò è provato dal fatto che sul sito nel "Nuovo PSI" di Caldoro si fa riferimento al partito solo ed esclusivamente come "Nuovo PSI"; lo statuto del "Nuovo PSI" di Caldoro è stato approvato nel 2007 [8], proprio la data della scissione in due; nel 2009 l'Ufficio elettorale centrale nazionale ha affermato che il "Nuovo PSI" di Caldoro non è lo stesso partito del 2004, come poi confermato dal TAR del Lazio. [...]
Please also note that the www.nuovopsi.com was given back by De Michelis & Co. to the current NPSI (still led by Caldoro) a few years later.
I found the source that settles things once and for all! The NPSI's faction led by De Michelis was active as a separate party from the official NPSI led by Caldoro and was known as "Socialist Party". I will edit the article according to the source (even though I'm not sure about the dates given). For clarity, the article should be moved to "Socialist Party (De Michelis)". This AfD should be closed and the article kept. --Checco (talk) 10:12, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Checco: It settles nothing. First, you haven't disproven my charge about notability. Second, GoogleTranslate tells me that you're participating in this same argument in itwiki, where there is also disagreement. If the Italian-language Wikipedians don't agree on the sourcing, why would we? One book alone (which might not even be independent) doesn't make out notability. It sounds like the subject could be mentioned in a section of the Italian Socialist Party article but it doesn't merit its own article. Chris Troutman (talk)10:39, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It settles everything. The "Socialist Party" led by De Michelis was a real party and its notablity is beyond any doubt (two MEPs!).
Regarding it.Wiki, virtually everyone knows that it is hardly a reliable Wiki and that they have a totally different policy on notability (just think that they are currently discussing over the deletions of The Other Europe and European Choice, and several users support them). However, there is no active disussion in it.Wiki on our issue (it was settled once ago: two parties), I'm not taking part to any discussion there and I seldom contribute there because I disagree with it.Wiki's policies and customs. --Checco (talk) 11:01, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While there might not be the optimum amount of sources, we have to be pragmatic and accept that there will not be an avalanche of sources about short-lived minor political parties.--Autospark (talk) 22:05, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It.Wiki is absurdly restrictive but en.Wiki is extremely elastic. I admit that I didn't know the information linked by Checco and that the source is very interesting. But there are some problems: the names "Socialist Party (2007-08)" and "Socialist Party (De Michelis)" are wrong, the source says that the "party" was led by Mauro Del Bue. The perspective of this party was only to join itself into Socialist Party. I think that these informations should be reported in the page of New PSI.--Maremmano (talk) 22:33, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why would those two names be "wrong"? The party was dissolved in 2008 and its main leader was De Michelis. --Checco (talk) 07:38, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The date of dissolution (2008) is supposed. And did two socialist parties exist in the period 2007-08?--Maremmano (talk) 22:59, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The PS–De Michelis was merged into the current PS during the party's founding congress in July 2008. Before that, waiting for the formal birth of the new party, De Michelis' followers had organized themselves in the party this article is about. --Checco (talk) 07:45, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
keep and deal with ths content problems on the talk page. We normally do cover splinter groups of this sort. DGG ( talk ) 18:29, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If the page should remain, however the redirects Socialist Party (Italy, 2007–08) and Socialist Party (Italy, 2007-2008) should be deletd, the date of dissolution is not at all demonstrated, the Italian Socialist Party (2007) was born in 2007--Maremmano (talk) 19:35, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
I propose to close the debate moving the page to Socialist Party (De Michelis) and deleting the redirects Socialist Party (Italy, 2007–08) and Socialist Party (Italy, 2007–2008) because are wrong, the date of dissolution has not been proved by any source, it is an original research. Okay?--Maremmano (talk) 22:11, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to the fix of all the links directed to the article. I also support the deletion of those redirects, but are you going to fix all those broken links? Many thanks, --Checco (talk) 07:13, 20 May 2014 (UTC) @Admins: Please close this discussion and move the article.[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.
Keep and rename - here is seem to be the person himself that is notable not his death. So a namechange is needed.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:19, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The 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.
Rapper whose article makes no substantive or properly sourced claim of notability sufficient to pass WP:NMUSIC — it just asserts that he exists and has released an album, and is sourced only to non-notable blogs and primary sources (i.e. his own social media profiles). I'm willing to withdraw this if a substantive claim of notability, sourced to proper sources, can be provided — but this version, as written, ain't cutting it. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 22:34, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not clear what your rationale is. Bad articles should be improved by volunteers at the point of a gun? Nothing suggests you were interested in whether or not he was notable at any point. 78.18.102.158 (talk) 01:28, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that the article fails to demonstrate, through the use of reliable sources, that he actually meets our inclusion rules for the notability of musicians. It isn't my job to "be interested in whether or not he was notable at any point", if that requires speculative guessing that isn't reflected in the article as written. The onus is on the writer of the article to demonstrate that he is notable enough to pass our inclusion standards — not on Wikipedia to keep an article that, as written, fails to meet our standards just because one anonymous IP thinks (wrongly) that a gun is somehow being pointed at their head. Bearcat (talk) 22:11, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
notability is a property of the subject, not the article. So yes, it is your job. nobody at afd is interested in your reviews of articles. 78.19.99.71 (talk) 23:16, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The onus is not on the writer(s) of the article to demonstrate notability (though it helps), beyond the bare minimum WP:CSDA7 and A9 criteria. The AfD nominator is expected to check for sources: see WP:BEFORE — Gwalla | Talk17:09, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the onus is on the writer to at least demonstrate and source enough notability to at least get the person past A7 and A9 (which this article, as written, did not — it was in fact entirely speediable as written, with the fact that it was two years old already being the only reason I opted to take this route instead of pulling the speedy trigger on it.) And I did follow WP:BEFORE enough to know that while outside sourcing isn't entirely nonexistent, there isn't enough of it to actually get him past WP:GNG in any substantive way (even you acknowledge in your comment below that the sourcing you found is "not spectacular".) Bearcat (talk) 18:47, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It was most certainly not speediable as A7 (or A9, which doesn't apply). A7 specifically says "The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Wikipedia's notability guidelines." (bold in the original). That "even if" clause is important: no sources need to be provided in order to meet that minimal standard. As far as GNG goes, "not spectacular" is not the same as "not significant". There are multiple sources, independent of the subject, which discuss the subject as more than a passing mention. That's GNG. "Not spectacular" was me being self-deprecating about my cursory search. — Gwalla | Talk21:30, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It most certainly was speediable, as it does not make any actual claim of significance at all — as written, it fails to actually claim anything beyond "this person exists", which is not the same thing. Bearcat (talk) 21:36, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Keep and move to Iron Solomon. I found a few sources just in the first page of results from googling him, though they're not spectacular: [9] from Complex Magazine (review of a rap battle he participated in), [10] also from Complex (mostly an interview, but the first page is a brief history of his career), and [11] from Forbes of all things. Past the first page I get [12] from XXL Magazine, [13] from Vibe Magazine (interview with another rapper who beat him in a battle). I think that meets WP:BAND#1. I also ran across [14]. I should also note that the label he's on, Duck Down Music Inc., is clearly notable, though since he appears to only have one album so far he doesn't meet BAND#5. The article should be moved to fix capitalization. — Gwalla | Talk16:47, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
The artist's own twitter pager, facebook page and Yout Tube Channel are not independent. The first reference is actually a link to the artist's record label/publisher so that's not independat. -Rehnn83Talk18:27, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm referring to the references I found that I linked in this discussion, the ones from Complex, Forbes, XXL, and Vibe. — Gwalla | Talk22:32, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move per Gwalla. Some of the sources that he's found don't go into enough depth to establish notability; but the Forbes piece and the Complex profile amply satisfy the notability criteria: coverage in some detail, in independent widely-circulated reputable media. Ammodramus (talk) 15:22, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to proper capitalization. Gwalla's links (Complex, Forbes, XXL, etc.) are dedicated coverage and sufficient for the GNG. czar ♔15:43, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. After three weeks, there's no consensus regarding the retention, deletion, merging, etc. of this article. Regarding the merge !vote by User:Unscintillating, a discussion of such can continue on an article talk page. (Non-administrator closure.) NorthAmerica100011:11, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A shopping center in Patna like thousands of shopping centers in India which do not credibly indicate the importance or significance of it. The article was once PRODed and recent CSD was declined by non-admin editor[15]. The only reliable reference have a single passing mention which doesn't establish notability. Bisswajit06:51, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Speedy was declined due to WP:CSD#A7, which is to be used only for individuals, animals, organizations, web content, events.--Shivam(U-T-C)18:55, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, a mall is a mall. It might also be interpreted as a building or a place, but those aren't CSD A7 criteria either. The removal of the A7 tag was completely correct in this case. Lankiveil(speak to me)07:54, 11 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]
While acknowledging that I think our usual practice towards secondary schools is completely bonkers, most of our "school" articles are not on the buildings, they're on the institutions that are inside the buildings. If this were an article on "Vasundhara Homes Pvt. Ltd", the company that owns this particular mall, then the article would be A7-able. Lankiveil(speak to me)08:20, 12 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]
No argument on our practices in the school area. :::::::But I actually think schools and malls are comparable in this regard. In each case, I don't think we are writing primarily on the physical building. With private schools for example, we are writing on what the organization that runs the service of education within the edifice happens to offer (sometimes it is what a private school company offers as "school x"; sometimes it is a board of education offering it as "school y"). And with malls we are doing the same. We are writing on what the organization that runs the edifice happens to offer within the edifice. I don't think in either case we are writing primarily on the bricks and mortar, though that would be the case with historically significant buildings. --Epeefleche (talk) 08:32, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And... I think the fact we can debate about this, apart from being off topic, is a prime reason why it's not appropriate for the blunt instrument of speedy deletion, which should only be for absolutely straightforward, clear cut cases. Lankiveil(speak to me)08:29, 13 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Merge A look at Patna shows a picture of a mall, and the template at the bottom shows four malls. One of the current sources in the article discusses a list of malls in Patna. As per the policy WP:ATD, if this topic is determined to be non-notable, it can be merged to a new article, List of malls in Patna. Unscintillating (talk) 23:38, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
KeepThe Times of Indiaarticle shows this to be the important mall in the city. In addition, per WP:OUTCOMES, a common outcome is that articles on malls are almost always considered notable.--Shivam(U-T-C)18:55, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I find it difficult to believe that a six-storied mall has only one anchor store; moreover, this mall is designed by the most renowned Architect of India, Hafeez Contractor, which is rare in case of malls (he is often considered as brand ambassador of the architecture of India [16]), is also a sign of notability.--Shivam(U-T-C)17:39, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that inherent notability does not apply here. And that the assertion that "articles on malls are almost always considered notable" is untrue.Epeefleche (talk) 08:37, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
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.
Question What makes you say this is a "vanity article"? That's quite a negative assessment... As for claims for notability, I see several claims (university chair, chair of a foundation, inventor of something). Also, if I click the link to Google Scholar above, I find several highly-cited papers that seem to indicate some influence in his field. Could you perhaps expand on your rationale? Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 12:39, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Mostly because it was created as such by the very first edit ([19]) by an editor who has barely edited anything else. This makes my COI-sense tingle - not to mention, for me it reads like a vanity article. If you think that my assessment is invalid or overly negative (especially for BLP!), I will remove it from the deletion nomination.
As for notability, he is not in a named chair (WP:ACADEMIC criteria #5 - I am actually not sure these even exist in Estonia), OpenKSI foundation (http://www.openksi.org/) looks to be basically an one-page website set up by his own company, Guardtime (offtopic: that company does deserve to be a bluelink/article for sure) and unfortunately I am not qualified to assess his contributions in the field of cryptography. Perhaps most telling (for me) about his notability is that there is no article about him in the Estonian Wikipedia - nor was I able to find any news articles discussing him. There are a few that mention his name, but they are about Guardtime and mention him as one of the founders/CTO.
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. Considering that the nomination was grounded in concerns about the article's sourcing, and a number of new sources have been added during the debate, the discussion does tend towards "keep", but it would be overreaching to say there was a real "keep" consensus here.—S MarshallT/C19:05, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dabangg - there are only two films in which the charcter appears,not notable enough for an independant article, & as noted the article is nothing but plot summaries. It is also effectily unsourced.TheLongTone (talk) 14:56, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete there is nothing salvagable in the current version, but if MichaelQSchmidt or some other editor wants to userfy , that is an option as well.— Preceding unsigned comment added by TheRedPenOfDoom (talk • contribs)
Keep and improve - Upon a source review of those provided by User:MichaelQSchmidt above, the topic passes WP:GNG. That said, the article would benefit from copy editing to be more succinct and the addition of sources to the Biography and Game character sections. NorthAmerica100013:10, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
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.
Strong keep Verifiable information (and actually has a source in the article); not random trivia (if this was meant under the derogatory word 'cruft'). No original research; pure list; useful historical info, for completeness sake. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:20, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I always hate to see so much work go into pages like these, with all the linking and the, um, "research". But fancruft like this needs major sourcing, as people not familiar with the show must just take it at face value. — Wyliepedia08:17, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep It's sourced, and surely an episode guide for a primetime show that spanned two decades is worth keeping. Sweezely (talk) 14:41, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If this article is not notable then surely all episode/contestant lists of similar era talent shows should also be MfD (e.g. link) Sweezely (talk) 18:53, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The argument is not about whether you personally like the presentation, it is about the notability. This was a very popular show that is still repeated on Saturday night prime time, therefore an episode guide is equally as notable as the article I mentioned. If it can be improved, it should be improved, rather than simply deleted. Furthermore, it is only marked for deletion due to lack of sourcing, therefore please keep the argument to the validity of the sourcing and not your personal opinions of its quality. Sweezely (talk) 18:01, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you did there, you reiterated your opinion without offering anything to back it up. This weakens your argument. Further, you describe yourself as a "staunch inclusionist". Your words: "It's my belief that if someone has spent many hours on an article..., can back up its importance or significance and does not have a conflict of interest, then it's deserving of an article on Wikipedia." By your own rules, this article should not be deleted. What do you have against it? It has been demonstrated that it is notable, and you insist on calling it cruft despite it being sourced. So neither of those points are valid. Furthermore, if it were to be deleted, then all that would happen is that the information here would be transferred to the main article. Then it would be split because such a large page would be unnavigable. So deleting it serves no purpose.Sweezely (talk) 22:34, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a British talk show running for sixteen years and was notable in the UK. The list helps organization and traversability of information on Wiki. Valoemtalkcontrib21:59, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
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.
Article about a person notable primarily as a commissioner of the state DMV and as a former member of a county executive, neither of which is a position that automatically confers a presumption of notability on its holders just because they existed. In addition, the article relies exclusively on two primary sources (one of which, furthermore, is a dead link), with not a whit of reliable source coverage to demonstrate that she actually passes our inclusion rules in any meaningful way. As always, I'm willing to withdraw this if the sourcing and the notability claim can be substantively improved, but this version, as written, is a delete. Bearcat (talk) 20:58, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As County Executive, the subject was covered extensively in the Press & Sun-Bulletin. Likewise, as DMV Commissioner, the subject was and is covered extensively in the Times Union (Albany). So either find someone with a subscription who can browse those newspapers' archives online or show up at the Broome County Public Library or Albany Public Library and start pulling reels of microfilm. And those are just the obvious places to look for WP:RS. If you're going to AfD this one, then the zero-sourced or single sourced J. Russell Sprague, A. Holly Patterson, and Ralph G. Caso should go as well. -- DanielPenfield (talk) 02:14, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
While it's true that the standard for some topics is that as long as you can verify that the thing exists, it's allowed to keep an unsourced article as long as it's reasonable to expect that sources exist somewhere, that is emphatically not the standard that Wikipedia applies to biographies of living persons. That class of article requires some reliable source coverage to already be in the article in its present form, and is not entitled to be kept just because it might eventually be sourceable. Bearcat (talk) 21:10, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The only difference between a BLP created after that date and one created before it is the article's eligibility for the specialized new WP:BLPPROD process. An article created before that date is still not entitled to stick around unsourced, and can still be deleted for being unsourced — it isn't eligible for one particular process for deleting unsourced BLPs, but it can still be put through other deletion processes, such as AFD, on that basis. However, I see that you have added some proper sourcing to the article, so consider this withdrawn. Bearcat (talk) 16:20, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Fails WP:GNG. References within article point back to episodes of the cartoon and one link to the live-action movie, but none provide sources that meet significant coverage.
Google search provides no links within the first three pages of results that meet WP:GNG, instead providing links to fan wikis, Pinterest pages and Flickr pools.
Although first AFD was closed as Keep, the keep votes again reference Elizabeth Taylor's and Joan Collins' portryals of the character, not the character itself. These notations show that the actresses portraying the character are notable, but their portrayal again does not help the character itself meet WP:GNG/significant coverage. AldezD (talk) 18:44, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect There are several non-notable characters that get covered despite their general notability. The article List of The Flintstones characters already exists as a redirect, so this can be used to merge and remove non-notable Flinstones' character articles. Failing a merge, I recommend a redirect to The Flinstones character section, as this character is covered there. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:05, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
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 Vancouver#Transportation. The non-keep arguments cite that it does not meet the notability guidelines or if it does, the article fails our policy of verifiability (it is unsourced and thus does cannot demonstrate notability). The keep arguments, while asserting its status, otherwise fail to refute or address these issues with policy-or-guideline-based arguments; however, should sourcing be added to the article to help assuage the aforementioned concerns, the eventual redirect is free to be reversed and another discussion can occur at AfD over its notability as demonstrated by those sources should someone feel it necessary to start one. slakr\ talk /02:43, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a major thoroughfare in Vancouver. I believe the prevailing consensus is that major thoroughfares in major cities are notable while sidestreets are generally not (excepting for ones with substantial independant coverage). ThemFromSpace16:12, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Not only is this a major thoroughfare in a major city, but it's the location and namesake for the King Edward Station in the SkyTrain system. Such investment is only made at locations that are considered vital in a major transportation system.--Oakshade (talk) 22:09, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It would be impossible for there not to be extremely extensive government reports with analysis, traffic and pedestrian patterns and the impact on the area of this street by having a station on this street, thus passing even WP:GNG. There is far too much investment and civic importance for such reports not to be done.--Oakshade (talk) 23:23, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Vancouver#Transportation. We do not give streets, even major thoroughfares, a pass on notability; they must pass WP:GNG. This is a plain, common, unremarkable road with no evidence of passing WP:GNG. However, there may be some here that can be added to the section of the city's article regarding transportation, and redirects are cheap. - The BushrangerOne ping only21:46, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
As has been noted repeatedly above, simply being a major thoroughfare in a city is not, in and of itself, a sufficient claim of notability to qualify a street for an unsourced article. The notability of a city street is demonstrated by the use of reliable sources which demonstrate that the street has been the subject of substantial coverage in multiple independent sources, and not just by being able to prove that the street exists. Bearcat (talk) 21:11, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
City streets, as a rule, are not entitled to an automatic presumption of notability just because they exist, or even because they're "major thoroughfares", if the article in question does not actually cite any reliable sources to demonstrate that the road warrants coverage in an encyclopedia. This article, as written, only describes the road's physical characteristics — thereby failing WP:ROADOUTCOMES, which explicitly states that an article that explains and provides valid relevant citations for the social, cultural, historical or political context of a road in depth is more likely to survive AfD than one which merely describes the road's physical characteristics. So while I suppose it might be possible that an article could be written about this road which actually satisfied our inclusion rules for roads, this article as written ain't it. Delete; no prejudice against future recreation if somebody can write and source a good new article about it which gives any real context for why the road should be considered notable. Bearcat (talk) 21:11, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to Future_of_the_Russian_Navy#Destroyers. I leave it up to a subject matter expert to figure out how much information should be merged. In any case, leave a redirect behind. No bias against breaking this back out into a stand-alone article if at some future time, sufficient reliable independent sources emerge. -- RoySmith(talk)13:33, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about a vessel concept identified by a project name or number. Typically, ship design companies create and publish concepts identified by some name or number every now and then, but only a fraction of them will ever be built. In this case, none of these "Project 21956" ships have been built or even ordered - it's just a concept that the ship design company hopes someone would buy. In WP:SHIPS, "proposed ships" are considered notable enough to warrant an article (i.e. not fail WP:CRYSTAL) when the shipbuilding contract is awarded (or was awarded but later cancelled) or there is (was) otherwise strong indication (e.g. strong media publicity) that the vessel will be (or would have been) built. This is not the case with this article and thus I have proposed it for deletion. Tupsumato (talk) 14:17, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but reword - An alternative would be to reword the article so it talks about the project rather than as if the ships already existed (as it does at present). This would be appropriate if the project itself is notable which it seems to be as there are several references. It is certainly the sort of thing a reader might reasonably be searching for. -Arb. (talk) 09:04, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't mean it's not a violation of WP:CRYSTAL - we routinely delete pages that receive quite a lot of hits if they don't meet our inclusion policies. Ships that weren't built (and most of those that were cancelled after work began) usually don't merit an article (and when they do warrant an article, it's because they are discussed significantly by reputable naval historians, and usually merged in with related topics - as in the case with French battlecruiser proposals or German FK cruiser designs). At best, this article could be merged into a hypothetical List of destroyers of Russia and the Soviet Union if someone wants to go through the trouble of creating it. Parsecboy (talk) 12:02, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I might be failing some kind of Wikipedia policy here by making this comparison, but in my eyes "Project 21956" is comparable to e.g. Aker ARC 100 HD, a conceptual design that was published last spring and was featured in a number of high-profile ship technology publications. While I wrote an article about oblique icebreakers in general and another about the one that is being built right now, I haven't mentioned it in Wikipedia. As a project, it is simply not notable enough.
—————————
I take serious issue with the using the ship number (and lack of name) as a point against this article. The actual class and ship names are allocated by the Russian Navy, and done so after production. Just because French or American companies produce promotional names does not mean that this is the practice elsewhere. IMHO, it shows a degree of ignorance of Russian naval design to use this argument. There is no way that this design is significantly less notable than the DDG-X/DDG-1000 was before it was procured. Hrimpurstala (talk) 14:25, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The 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.
Looks to go way back on the web, but I'm just not finding sources to pass WP:GNG. The majority of the article is currently links to lists that include the site (e.g. a section on "Library Recommended Lists"). Seems like it's pointedly trying to show notability but in the process hurting the article and failing in the attempt. — Rhododendritestalk | 19:50, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, it's kind of secondary to the sourcing, but the site is basically a web relic -- a website directory with heavy advertising. --— Rhododendritestalk | 19:51, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Did not find any independent reliable source with significant (or in fact any) coverage about the topic to meet WP:GNG. I admit I didn't search long; the name's generic quality makes it challenging to search. No sources are currently cited in the article. I read the previous discussion and simply disagree with the rationale that "keep" voters applied, i.e. that reliable sources are unnecessary because links on independent websites (Yahoo, NASA, etc.) that describe the site are sufficient. I'll check back here in case someone posts reliable sources that I overlooked. Agyle (talk) 22:40, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The 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.
Redirect per Frood. (This probably could have been done without needing to come to AfD, unless there is some record of opposition that I'm not seeing in the article history.) -Arxiloxos (talk) 20:15, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Blatant HOAX, and also this looks like a vandalism. The name states "Ahmad Hafeez", when searched with this name, a male comes up. Also, the picture states name as Zarine Khan. This is a deletion article please. Also look at this edit, it shows the use of "His", "Her", "Yuvraj", "Atif Aslam", etc, which shows the HOAX in it. Danke Vishal Bakhai - Works19:42, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
i'm not following what you mean by a "reliable source". google it (which i did before making the article) and you get 36 million hits, not tweets or rants, but bona-fide blogs, journals, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikewax (talk • contribs) 18:51, 11 May 2014
The terminology does seem to have some currency. Perhaps a link to Wiktionary? I didn't find substantial coverage to warrant an article.
Wiktionary isn't Wikipedia's trashcan and doesn't accept neologisms with no evidence of real-world usage either. Angr (talk) 09:30, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this unreferenced article. We would need to have citations to significant coverage of this concept in independent , reliable sources to have such an article, and I'm not seeing it. A large number of Google hits does not show notability if these are passing uses of a catch phrase. So it is incumbent on those supporting keeping the article to furnish the references. Cullen328Let's discuss it19:55, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
that's not entirely true. it's not really incumbent on anyone, that's why we call it Wikipedia. "A large number of Google hits does not show notability" no it does not, at least, not by itself, not entirely, it doesn't. but it does imply something about how important it is relative to myriad other articles that are already on wikipedia, and it definitely does make it real easy to find countless examples of a term that obviously is not a "catch phrase". OTOH, there is a good arguement to be made for changing it to "educational industrial complex" but then i assume the same objections would apply.Mikewax (talk) 06:32, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The author didn't help us by including any references, and a quick google search doesn't show anything of substance. It shows the term being thrown around on a few blogs, but nothing that would warrant an article for a neologisms like this. Shadowjams (talk) 20:32, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
12,000,000. that's a real number, i didn't just make it up. let's do a little comparison with similar terms (also here on wikipedia) that you do seem to consider notable:
peace industrial complex - 11,000,000
prison industrial complex - 7,500,000
military industrial complex - 23,000,000
now if i had called it the education industrial complex (50,000,000 hits) you could still say that it's "a few blogs" could you not?Mikewax (talk) 06:32, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Did you put the search phrase in quotation marks? If not, your Google count will yield 99.999% false positives. Forget millions of hits, just give us TWO examples of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. That's what I've done hundreds of times when I believed an article should be kept. Please produce, MikewaxCullen328Let's discuss it06:40, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Mikewax, a "reliable source" is a publication, not related to the topic it is reporting on, with a reputation for accuracy. Scholarly publications or news media are usually considered reliable; blogs or other self-published work usually are not, but there are exceptions. To be deemed notable for Wikipedia's purposes, a topic needs "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". For articles about words or phrases, that means publications analyzing or describing the phrase, not just using it. You may also be interested to read Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Google test. Cnilep (talk) 02:28, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I looked online for sources (exactly one lonely Ghit on Google scholar, and quite a few regular Ghits, but not the millions alleged - virtually all of the book Ghits are false hits), but all I found were opinion pieces that use the phrase as an ad hominem attack on the media, supposedly rich college professors, etc. I can't see that it's been used for other than partisan purposes in opinion/ conspiracy theory blogs, and then only in passing. Oddly, there appears to be some sources available for pre-college industrial complexes in Korea and Japan, but I'm not going there. Bearian (talk)
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.
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
Keep, I agree with first AfD because of consensus. But this time its with keep as per discussion logs due to many indications e.g. Her participation in Miss Asia Pacific World, RS and now she is well known beauty personality. With all aspect I think its now well justifiable to keep this article. GKCH (talk) 04:18, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I always find Indian media hard to evaluate. None of them seem to resemble traditional Western quality news sources; they don't use the dry, cautious language to which I'm accustomed and I agree with Hobit that those sources read like press releases. I wonder to what extent they've been checked. However, I'm confident that if Anukriti Gusain was British or American or Australian and had similar accomplishments, then she'd have an article on Wikipedia. It seems unjust to deny her one because of the tone of the sources, so on balance I'm a weak keep.—S MarshallT/C10:42, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A word of caution Out of deference to AGF I don't want to make any specific accusations, but I will remind any editors contributing to this discussion that sock puppetry is a very serious no-no on Wikipedia and a quick way to get blocked or banned. You may comment as often as you like, but please !vote only once in this (or any other) AfD discussion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:50, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Completing nomination on behalf of 79.7.4.12 (talk ·contribs) who gave No fully professional debut as the delete rationale. I agree with this assessment, he has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. He does have two cup appearances for NK Maribor, but both were against a lower division club, meaning they don't confer notability either. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:30, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - why waste time trying to delete articles that would likely only be recreated shortly afterwards, as they are clearly on the edge of their professional debut. Nfitz (talk) 20:36, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Contested Prod. Article creator claims that Sedekerskis has played in professional leagues, even though it is clear that none of the competitions he has competed in is anywhere near the ones considered sufficient to meet WP:NBASKETBALL. However, I do agree that he'll probably meet those criteria in the future, so I'd suggest userfying the article. Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 16:24, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
He already played in second-tier Lithuanian basketball league - National Basketball League. It definitely is a professional league with decent level professional players, which means he already is a professional basketball player and not an amateur. Sedekerskis also been a member of Lithuanian Under-16 team and was one of the team leaders. In 2013 he signed a professional long-term contract with Laboral Kutxa and due to his impressive performances in youth competitions, he will join main squad really soon. Without any doubt he is worth to have a Wikipedia page. -- Pofka (talk) 19:47, 11 May 2014 (GMT +2)
He is considered as one of top European prospects of such age and already is known world-wide as he participated in Jordan Brand Classic and others competitions. Wikipedia rules are mostly adapted for USA/Australia, however Euroleague and Australia basketball league levels are just incomparable and it is unfair because I truly believe that some random Australian league player isn't better than Sedekerskis. -- Pofka (talk) 22:37, 15 May 2014 (GMT +2)
The key part is "of such age". Junior achievements don't show notability. The IP is right when he says WP:TOOSOON. He may become notable, but he's not there yet. Astudent0 (talk) 23:47, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not every junior signs 6 year contract with one of the strongest Spanish team. He already is notable. -- Pofka (talk) 17:44, 18 May 2014 (GMT +2)
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.
Non-notable brand/formulation of calcium carbonate. (Calcium carbonate in various formulations is widely used as an inexpensive dietary calcium supplement.) Marahdeo Holdings, trading as Marah Natural, is the only company that sells it, and makes claims on their website for the superiority of its "formulation technology" to other calcium supplements. The website promotes it as a "preventative and therapeutic strategy" for Alzheimer's disease and osteoporosis as well as "helping bones to densify [sic] for higher athletes' performance". The only mentions of this brand name anywhere are on the Marah Natural website and in a couple of articles in obscure Korean journals, where it was tested on "post-menopausal" rats and allegedly improved their bone density. Needless to say, the company's website refers repeatedly to these studies as well as to "clinical trials" on swimmers carried out by "NTS Research & Inc" who developed the formulation. Note that both Marahdeo Holdings and NTS Research share the same address [20], [21]. All but one of the illustrations in the article are from the Marah Natural website. It appears to be an attempt to use a scientific-looking Wikipedia article to legitimize their products, although the company is never mentioned in the article. See also this discussion at WikiProject Medicine. Voceditenore (talk) 15:36, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The term "Sigma anti-bonding" is an attempt to use a term that any chemist would understand in an entirely inappropriate way to convince people that this is real science. It is not. The use of the term is not explained. It smells of hogwash to me. As indicated above it is also promotional. --Bduke(Discussion)11:22, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article as now written is making medical claims with references that do not meet the standard used for medical articles on Wikipedia. And a search of reliable medical sources does not show any additional references to support the claims. I see nothing here that can or needs to be merged. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥17:13, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This is pseudo-medicine, rubbish science, quackery, spam, nonsense, crap, rubbish, junk. Kill it with napalm, thermite, hellfire and brimstone, etc... Oh and give a soggy trout to the reviewer who accepted it. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:03, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
Delete, as nominator. I'm sure he's a great person and does a lot of good things, but he's not notable enough yet for a Wikipedia article. Valfontis (talk) 15:37, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If the highest level of office he's held is the county planning commission, then that's not an office that confers notability on its holders under WP:POLITICIAN — the lowest level of office at which a person automatically qualifies for an article just for holding it is the state legislature. (Politicians at the local county or municipal levels of government may qualify for articles in some circumstances, but are not entitled to an automatic "just because he exists" presumption of notability.) Article relies a little too heavily on primary and unreliable sources, and the few good sources about him are not enough to demonstrate that he's cleared the high bar for notability of local politicians. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 16:54, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The 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.
Sourced entirely to UFO conspiracy sites, the one BBC piece is a small note that can easily be made in a broader article on UFO sightings. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:50, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I moved this article to mainspace after pillaging Storm05's userspace. I do not currently have an opinion on the matter, though I am open to being swayed. What article did you have in mind?--Launchballer15:21, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. There's consensus against keeping, but there's no consensus against or for a redirect, so feel free to create one, and, if opposed, the issue can be dealt with at WP:RFDslakr\ talk /00:28, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Poorly sourced article about a Taser-like product. I am unable to find reliable sources with which to establish notability. Fails WP:GNG. - MrX11:58, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Leyden ball, practically the same concept. Unlike the OP, I have been able to find reliable sources covering "Leyden Gun" from a simple google search, eg. this source. I think there is too much overlap between this and Leyden ball to keep this as a separate article, and there is no sourced content to merge. 109.79.127.244 (talk) 13:11, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, do not redirect. Not enough reliable sources to meet "significant coverage" threshold of general notability guideline (WP:GNG), and no reliable sources make any connection between Leyden Gun and Leyden ball. I searched books.google (found nothing), scholar.google (found nothing), and a normal Google web search where I found only:
Delete, do not redirect Articles are from 2010 about an upcoming product that seems not to have ever upcome. Product website referenced in video has not been updated (still speaks of 2013 as the future). This is not a Layden Ball.Jersey92 (talk) 19:25, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. the article is one sentence ("Automatic stun weapon on the basis of discharge of the hidh voltage capacitor. The concept of a new type of non-lethal weapons.") There, now everyone can see what we deleted. Wheee.--Milowent • hasspoken02:45, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The 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.
Delete - software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up no significant RS coverage of this software. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 10:48, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I did a lot of research, I am have been involved with emulation in the past and am fairly knowledgeable in this specific subject. In regards to emulators, RS in this niche topic, I believe, needs to be a little more lax. This emulator has barely been covered by in topic sources. To get to the point, this is not an emulator yet, it appears to be a work in progress and can barely run a few games. Valoemtalkcontrib21:33, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Ex MMA fighter and wrester turned journalist and, from the usernames, self-promoter. I can't find a single reliable source talking about Byggs. Seems to fail all of the requisite notability requirements. This is much more of a CV than an article. Peripitus(Talk)09:11, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Five secondary reliable sources for professional wrestling (PWTorch / F4Wonline / SLAM! Wrestling / WrestleView / PWInsider) produce exactly one result in total, and spelled his name wrongly while it was mentioned in passing, he didn't even wrestle a match but was a guest manager. When online databases like CageMatch and WrestleData (which has 23,867 wrestlers listed) produce nothing, he's got to be microscopic in fame. starship.paint"YES!"13:39, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
keep I added a prod earlier, but considering how many independent writing there are on the topic from the big writers about Apple topics, there is certainly enough to make this notable. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:22, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is substantial coverage in reliable sources (just google "ios 8" in quotes), establishing adequate notability of the topic. While it's short enough that it could also be contained within iOS, it meets notability criteria, it could be expanded to warrant a split already, and it seems likely it will expand significantly within a month anyway. If it's still a stub in a few months, coverage options can be re-evaluated then. Agyle (talk) 18:33, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I'm not sure what your point is. The topic is perfectly covered within the scope of those articles. Also, why does it matter or should we care about how many ethnic groups there are in China? M. Caecilius (talk) 09:47, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This page can be merged and redirected to either of those two pages (Ethnic issues in China, Human rights in China); much of what is covered in the Human rights of ethnic minorities in China article can be covered in those two pages. The topic is a legitimate and notable topic, however the amount of information presently available would probably suffice as an article section, rather than a standalone page. If the content becomes expanded in the future so that it becomes too large, it can be split off into an independent page again. --benlisquareT•C•E11:40, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete Article violates WP:LINKFARM, WP:SOAP and WP:RS for alot of its content, such as Dr. Paul George and Habib Siddiqui's articles (they have absolutely no credentials in the area). Wikipedia is not a platform to promote a certain cause or agenda. The article is essentially a one sided, random criticism of China thrown together without any context. If the article gets merged, most of the content on the merged article is going to get deleted anyway since it already violates WP:SOAP and WP:RS.Rajmaan (talk) 19:09, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please note Rajmaan, that WP:LINKFARM and WP:SOAP are not valid reasons for deletion and while WP:RS is a valid reason, it is not shown that there are no possible reliable sources, only that many of the current sources are not reliable. Delete in the context of a Afd does not mean delete the content rewrite a better article later. An Afd deletion means there will be no article with that title at all; not now and not in the future either. Before deleting, we should look to see if an article can be improved. If it can, then that is the course of action, even if every line or text is replaced and even if it takes years to do. It may be suitable to incubate an article while it is improved. Alternatively, write a quick stub and place that over the existing article thus removing the content you find objectionable until a longer article develops. A third option is to blank and redirect. Rincewind42 (talk) 14:27, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Substantially covered in numerous sources such as Equality, autonomy, and development: The pattern of protection of the human rights of ethnic minorities in China Xinhua Chubanshe 1998 as well as other book sources. Also numerous articles on this subject. Sufficiently distinct from human rights issues although there is some overlap. Candleabracadabra (talk) 19:21, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Substantially covered in numerous sources has nothing to do with the current article. The article, as it stands, is a badly written non-POV compilation of attacks on China, promoting a certain POV, a linkfarm, and sourced with articles written by people who have zero credentials in the area. If you feel you have reliable sources, then rewrite the article yourself after the current one is deleted. The source you just named is not currently being used in the article, it is a red herring to say the topic of the article is notable and well covered in sources not even used in the article, while the current article is written horribly.Rajmaan (talk) 20:32, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge if there's content worth keeping where the topic is already covered, as stated above. As it stands, the article is a fork and a soapbox. --Cold Season (talk) 23:20, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the title. There should be an article on this topic. Topic ban for User:Acxle for linking news stories that abuse the facts to summary that abuses the sources further. [22] and [23] The facts scream out at this tortuous treatment. China allows two children per family in rural areas. All rural areas. To everyone. http://www.refworld.org/pdfid/4f13d6f42.pdf The article claims not just the reverse, but that a specific group, Han, are given two in a specific area, Xinjiang, while another specific group, the indigenous, are restricted to one. An article on Islamic terrorism is used to justify this rich and complex falsehood. Either way you slice it, whether as bad faith or some sort of excellent ineptitude, this is harmful to the encyclopedia. Same for the sentence at the end of the article: An article which unwisely uses its mind-reading powers to discern a "hint" in a speech, is turned by the article summary into a fact. Anarchangel (talk) 01:38, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is no such policy as "keeping" a title, the policy is, that if the topic is notable but the article written about it violates policy, we delete the existing article and someone can create a new, neutral, non-POV article on the topic.Rajmaan (talk) 04:53, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
KeepUser:Rajmaan created Chinese propaganda articles: Migration to Xinjiang, User:Rajmaan/Migration to Xiniiang. What is purpose of these articles? Are these aricles necessary? There are many articles about human rights in Tibet but very few articles created for other ethnic minorities.
Please do not make double votes, as this makes it difficult to gauge the number of editors in support of each side and could be perceived as cheating the system. As for Migration to Xinjiang, there is no similar overlap with existing pages, and I'm not sure why you called it a "Chinese propaganda page", given that you are more than free (and I would encourage you) to add the Uyghur viewpoint in an NPOV manner into that article. I do think that more coverage on human rights of ethnic minorities in China other than the Tibetans is necessary, but we must consider the availability of reliable sources (which, by the way, a very large number of yours I don't consider to be). If there are a very large number of reliable sources covering what is clearly a very salient issue in popular discourse, then make it a separate page dealing specifically with the region/ethnicity, like "human rights of Uyghurs". If not, then integrate it into existing pages like human rights in China and Uyghur people. What I don't think is necessary is a separate page specifically on the human rights of ethnic minorities in China in general, especially since as it stands now that page more or less deals exclusively with the Uyghurs. Hope this clarifies my position. M. Caecilius (talk) 16:39, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I reject User:Acxle's ad hominem attack (see WP:NPA). In fact, what I wrote on the article Migration to Xinjiang is the exact opposite of Chinese historiography. In China, the Qing attack on the Zunghars is viewed as a heroic endeavor by the Qianlong Emperor while the Zunghar Khan Amursana is villified as a rebel. Mongols have called out China on this issue, China downplays the Qing genocide of the Zunghars while I created an entire Zunghar genocide article, and if I was a historian in China, I could potentially be permanently banned from academia for that. And in fact only one source used in the article is from China. Is Acxle suggesting that western historians who work at western universities like Professor James A. Millward, Peter C. Perdue, Christian Tyler, and Ildikó Bellér-Hann are Chinese propagandists?Rajmaan (talk) 21:25, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per Benlisquare comments, possibly merge into both articles. Looking over the laundry of arguments on all sides, this article clearly violates WP:NPOV and WP:LINKFARM but the subject matter is clearly notable and something worthy of inclusion into an encyclopedia. I personally don't see a legitimate deletion reason stated at all but there are some very good arguments for a merge. ♥ Solarra ♥♪ Talk ♪ ߷ ♀ Contribs ♀06:03, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The 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 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.
This person is not notable for anything tennis related and seems non-notable to me. Perhaps all athletic directors and philosophy professors are notable as I have no idea the qualifications from other wiki projects. There is an LA Times article link listed but it was because he was dead. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:54, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Becker is notable for significant association with founding and developing of California State University, Fullerton, originally Orange State. One way is that he was highly involved in the spectacularly successful 1962 intercollegiate elephant race that put the university on the map, nationwide. There are numerous Orange County Register and/or Los Angeles Times articles significantly about him; i have added some and there are now 3 and 1 of each type; there are more available. One unfortunate way that he was repeatedly in the news was for tragedy of his son being killed in the campus library in a mass murder incident. Becker, as a salient university official and as personally directly affected, in numerous stories was repeatedly quoted for his views, e.g. on the convicted shooter's alleged insanity, at repeated hearings for parole. The article could use more development, but this is a solid keep situation. --doncram17:19, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- obituaries in L.A. Times (major national newspaper) and Orange County Register (major regional paper) are sufficient for GNG, regardless of WP:PROF. Sourced w/ enough other minor references to be sufficient. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert(talk)05:26, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This person - an athletic director - should not be judged per WP:ACADEMIC, but rather per WP:GNG. And it is ABSOLUTELY UNTRUE that obits in major regional papers make you notable; I have only heard that argument advanced for the New York Times, and even for the NYT it did not achieve consensus. I'll evaluate GNG and come back with a recommendation for this subject, but both of these rationales, for delete (PROF) and keep (what are we calling it now, WP:OBITUARY?), are invalid. --MelanieN (talk) 23:39, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He has plenty of coverage (thank you, Doncram), not just his obituaries. He was the founding dean of his university and played a major role in its founding and development, which is significantly reported in major publications. (I added another one.) --MelanieN (talk) 23:57, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The creation of this article about a future season of a TV series is premature. Nothing has been published in reliable sources about this season except the fact that it is in production. Plot, airdate, title and cast are unknown. The article has problems with WP:CRYSTAL and WP:N. A redirect to the series overview was reverted. Sandstein 05:38, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There has been some level of discussion about the content of this article (the future season), as indicated by the multiple online publications on the topic, some of which are listed in the references section of the article. With regard to WP:CRYSTAL -- the article is not "a collection of unverifiable speculation". Everything in the article has been sourced. When I reverted the edit in which you blanked out the article (and replaced it with a redirect), initially it did not have any sources. Then, I took up on myself the task of verifying each and every single statement made in the article (by performing a Google search), and adding citations to article, for each of those assertions. So I think your statement that the article has problems with WP:CRYSTAL is untrue. Secondly, as you said, this is an upcoming season, and the plot, along with other such information, has (obviously) not been revealed yet. However, this does not necessarily warrant the deletion of the article. Wikipedia is replete with stubs, and this page can serve as a placeholder that other editors can add and expand upon, as new information about the season becomes available. Arjun G. Menon (talk·mail) 00:05, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect with history. I do think that it is too soon, albeit probably just slightly. Right now there's not really anything here that can't already be mentioned in the main article for the episodes. Will it release? Yup, given how insanely popular it is, it probably will. However we can't guarantee that and more than a few shows have received setbacks that have prolonged release for months or even years. We can only go by what we have now, at this point in time. As far as other shows/seasons having articles, that doesn't really mean anything per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS because those articles could have reasons to exist separately from the main article or they just haven't been found and deleted/redirected at this point in time. Right now it's just a waiting game and we don't lose anything by just redirecting to the main episode page. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。)14:41, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Only has written 1 book so far which does not even have a page on here. Seems to be too early for this guy as of now if ever. Wgolf (talk) 02:57, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-Was it a major book or something? Granted I'm not Hindu or Indian so I am not sure about that-so yeah was it? (I've seen odder ones get tagged from people nominated for an Oscar to even someone that might of been in the Olympics but was nowhere near getting a medal! Just being nominated in any category at the Oscars or being in the Olympics is good enough for a page IMO) Wgolf (talk) 16:03, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The book and author have received substantial coverage. In addition to the article in the Hindu and other articles already cited there'scoverage such as this. I don't think Olympic athletes should automatically be notable and I think that's changing. Nominations for awards are not enough in and of themselves. I think substantial coverage in reliable independent sources is really the key. Candleabracadabra (talk) 02:18, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
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 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.
Delete we are not a directory for free software. topic is unlikely to ever develop into even a list of commercial software. free is even less notable.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 21:09, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - software list article of unclear notability, as above made up of entirely non-notable entries and basically a linkfarm. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 08:07, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep. Agree with doncram on notability and awards and honors. Also notability is associated with firsts and founder role and not straight academia. Should be no further concerns by DGG because - can state unequivocally there is no copyvio here, and that this is not a memorial (living person).Ammiamm (talk) 20:51, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This page received positive feedback from reviewer/editor on creation as follows: Wikipedia editor Prof. Mc just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you "A good start to the article."Ammiamm (talk) 20:51, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keepdoes not pass WP:PROF or GNG; would reconsider if the significance of the awards could be explained. Copyvio or not (assuming good faith) is irrelevant in any case. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert(talk)05:28, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
changing to Weak Delete -- the Essex College principal is almost enough, however the school was only founded the same year and immediately incorporated into the University of Windsor (Assumption), so it seems more like a Dean role than a President/Vice-Chancellor role. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert(talk)18:41, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
changing to Keep -- it's a case of nearly passing many different elements of notability (for awards received, awards named after him, mentions in books that are slightly dependent on the institution but basically independent of the subject, close pass on the WP:PROF president level, etc.) -- I asked a week or so ago about clarification about the community consensus (on WP:PROF talk page) about whether nearly passing a number of criteria where any one of which would be sufficient for WP:N would be enough. I didn't get any discussion going, so I'll go with my gut; passes the Average Professor Test of WP:PROF for contributions to the founding of a notable school. Ammiamm did some convincing on my Talk page; I do wish there were some more sources that were truly independent; my feeling is someone will AfD this again if the article's sourcing isn't improved. An Obit in a paper? -- Michael Scott Cuthbert(talk)00:00, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep re query on notability of awards and honours- I see several very prestigious Canadian/Commonwealth awards are listed here- these are awarded by the Queen through the government of Canada or directly from the government of Canada to recognize individuals who have made a significant contribution to Canada and their community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4276point (talk • contribs) 14:47, 13 May 2014 (UTC) — 4276point (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment: Agree with Cuthbert that Principal role alone is almost enough- DeMarco was appointed inaugural Principal of Essex College in 1959 and held this position for 4 years until 1963 when University of Windsor was established. So in the post for four years and effectively in charge of Essex College from 1956 as chair of staff committee before Principal position was established. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4276point (talk • contribs) 22:54, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is an extensive comment posted to article's talk page from an involved contributor to the article if one or more editors would like to assist the involved parties with respect to policies and ummm whatever needs to be done (or not done as the case may be) as far as the article is concerned. Candleabracadabra (talk) 01:31, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment.Thank you for the careful reviews, and advice.
I am working with someone who is uncovering relevant newspaper articles, numbering literally in the hundreds, in the Windsor Star archives, and in the Canada-wide The Globe and Mail. I am a rookie in Wiki, but getting some of these additional citations into the article is our top priority. We have completed some, and are working on more. There is not a great deal of the institution’s fifty-years-ago history in print in books, so far, but we understand there is some in the works. We do cite a present-day printed periodical of the University of Windsor, called ['View' ] that is available in on-line form.
Also, regarding the comment from Candleabracadabra, about the talk page: Yes, I did post some background commentary there, because I thought that was what the page was for. Did I do something wrong? As I say, I am new to this, and I do welcome advice.Ammiamm (talk) 19:56, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the great work you are doing. Unfortunately it confirms that the subject is of local interest only and of no national or international interest. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:13, 17 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Comment Agree borderline international interest but definitely of local, provincial and national interest- see notes about prestigious national and Commonwealth honours. National level particular noteworthy for DeMarco's involvement with Prime Minister Trudeau when DeMarco was a governor for the International Development Research Centre from 1980 to 1984. He also met frequently with several Premiers of Ontario. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4276point (talk • contribs) 16:04, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The 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.
Non-notable local band. Article relies on the notablilty of Rick Berlin who has marginal notability at best. I can find very little about him in reliable sources. Almost everything is primary promotional sources with an occasional bit of coverage by local small newspapers and other local media. Ridernyc (talk) 20:20, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Non-notable local musician. I can find very little about him in reliable sources. Almost everything is primary promotional sources with an occasional bit of coverage by local small newspapers and other local media. Ridernyc (talk) 20:17, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain how this in particular is a reliable source that establishes notability [24]. I think your sources range from marginal at best, to downright comically short. We have a blog, a local newspaper calander of events, a very short article on a local newspapers website, and I'm not even sure what robertchristgau.com is. Ridernyc (talk) 04:12, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but when checking the link provided all I see are a few listing of reviews, no reviews. Yes it appears he war reviewed by a notable reviewer, in some notable publications but really all we have are a few listings. We are still way short of the GNG. Ridernyc (talk) 16:47, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
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 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.
Comment-Another article I've been wondering if I should put a AFD on for a while-not sure, but I think I'll go under Delete. Wgolf (talk) 18:39, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - very poorly cited with newswire sources. Everybody in Italy claims to be born in Roma; their maternity wards must be filled to the hallways. Bearian (talk) 21:20, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
CommentThis Highbeam article may or may not be enough to establish notability, but it does suggest that Cao's been involved in something more newsworthy than the current puff would suggest. Grayfell (talk) 05:24, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Seems to be a giant advertisement, even contains email addresses for contacts, now this could be a very interesting article if done correctly. Wgolf (talk) 18:01, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (leaning delete) - WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. The fact that an article reads like an advertisement is not relevant at AfD, because it can be cleaned up with editing. What is relevant is whether or not we are able to clean the article, particularly through adding reliable sources. To do this, we have to look at the availability of reliable sources--the notability of the subject. So far, I'm not seeing any such sources jumping out at me. It looks like the Spanish name for this is "Gaztetxe de Vitoria-Gasteiz". That may be helpful for finding sources. Mz7 (talk) 14:56, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
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.
Non-notable Band. I can find very little about them in reliable sources. Almost everything is primary promotional sources. Their main claim to notability seems to that they released a non-charting album on Epic, and they opened for a few notable acts. Their all music bio is mostly about their producer and other famous people he worked with. Ridernyc (talk) 20:25, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. I see three options: delete, merge, or keep. Without any substantial discussion, I see no other outcome than 'no consensus'. A merge discussion can continue at the appropriate talk page. (non-admin closure) Mz7 (talk) 18:47, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable Band. I can find very little about them in reliable sources. Almost everything is primary promotional sources. Their main claim to notability seems to that they released a non-charting album on Epic, and they opened for a few notable acts. Their all music bio is mostly about their producer and other famous people he worked with. Ridernyc (talk) 20:27, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Orchestra Luna was a controversial and arguably influential entity in the pre-internet world, and it would be unfortunate if we allowed this content to be removed. It's hard to produce on-line sources, but Allmusic has a substantial writeup for their one album [31] (I disagree with the nominator's characterization of this article); and here's a substantial (and critical) 1975 piece in the Village Voice. [32] As recounted in a 1994 Voice article, Glenn Branca credited Orchestra Luna as the true inspiration for Talking Heads. [33] More about Orchestra Luna can be found online in articles about more recent endeavors by Rick Berlin [34][35] and Karla de Vito [36]. --Arxiloxos (talk) 05:28, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Non-notable Band. I can find very little about them in reliable sources. Almost everything is primary promotional sources. Their main claim to notability seems to that they released a non-charting album on Epic, and they opened for a few notable acts. Their all music bio is mostly about their producer and other famous people he worked with. Ridernyc (talk) 20:29, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Way too much trivial information and questionable use of YouTube videos as "sources". If there are notable details about the hardware that can be obtained from reliable sources, it could be covered in a much less in-depth fashion. (that FCC document on phasing out earlier models because they cannot produce aural alert tones would be a good place to start) ViperSnake151 Talk 21:27, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Comment. I agree with the nominator's comments about superficial references about her brother, and have been working to add more references that are primarily about Targ's own work on computer literacy. As well as a local-newspaper obituary that probably doesn't do much for notability (but at least sources her death) I added several book and contemporary magazine sources that cover her directly, not in the context of her more notable relatives. However, I may have too much of a COI to express a keep-or-delete opinion in this AfD, as I went to high school with her sons, was friends at that time with others who had gone through her programs, and was personally acquainted with her although I did not go through those programs myself (they were at the middle school that I would have attended had I moved there earlier than I did). —David Eppstein (talk) 20:44, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would merge a couple sentences into her husband's article. I don't see substantial coverage in reliable independent sources to justify an independent articles on this individual.Candleabracadabra (talk) 21:15, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, a Google Book search does turn up some discussion of her career. And since there is not a single merge target (her brother is very famous and her husband also has a separate article), perhaps it's best to leave it as a stand alone article. Not super notable, but there's enough for a short article. Candleabracadabra (talk) 01:15, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Keep The article focuses too much on the organic farming stuff and not enough on her activities as an educator, but as an educator she was truly notable. Even I had heard about her brilliant idea, in the early 1980s, of employing high school students to teach computer basics to elementary school teachers. (I added that to the article.) Her notability is quite distinct from that of either her brother or her husband. I see that the article has been considerably improved since being nominated. --MelanieN (talk) 19:51, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
week keep the IS [37] and her peer tutoring programs seem to have gotten a bit of press back in the day and she is named pretty widely as an advocate. And while it is focused on her brother, there is the ability to build a pretty detailed biography of her early life.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom21:31, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article has been improved by others commenting on this page (thank you), and this woman serves as a relevant and significant historical aspect of technology and Silicon Valley / California. --estephan500 — Preceding undated comment added 06:18, 1 June 2022 (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.
I find no evidence to support the notability of this publication. Claims of playing a "vital role" during the emergency (which emergency?) or of being "one of the most read weekly newspaper (sic) in Delhi" cannot be verified. Its website consists of a single static page with a telephone number for contact. There are no mentions of this publication in any other reliable source. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!!10:53, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Although I accept that offline sources might exist for this, I cannot find anything that suggests this is likely. I can only find it mentioned in lists of newspapers. No citations to articles, no description of its history, no evidence of significant reporting... Moswentotalky11:56, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, also can't find reliable sources about this, other than a mention in a list of papers, and its editor being on a Press Club committee (here). I also tried searching for राष्ट्र टाइम्स, but don't read/speak Hindi, and didn't turn up anything. Someone who reads Hindi might find more about the newspaper. Agyle (talk) 19:53, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Soman, while one-line mentions in lists of newspapers is a good indication that it exists, it falls short of the significant coverage by independent reliable sources required by WP:GNG. Agyle (talk) 22:15, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but if there are multiple refs indicating that it's a regular, weekly publications with a circulation in thousands, that can work. Notability criteria are subjective, and as per WP:GNG, if we have a stub saying that it's a) Hindi newspaper 2) weekly 3) published from Delhi, claimed a circulation of 72,600 in 2004, then that's covered per the references given. --Soman (talk) 05:03, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
No indication of notability whatsoever. I tried to nominate it for speedy deletion, but unfortunately it got removed. Ack! Ack! Pasta bomb! (talk) 03:29, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I do not see any evidence that this is yet notable--as of May 2014 it has not yet been actually released, nor has a date been set. DGG ( talk ) 02:13, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I wrote the article with the intention of expanding it. There are multiple sources out there which report on this, so there is no need to throw the baby out with the bathwater per se, as I haven't expanded it yet. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 15:04, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
As Google and GBooks searches of the string <"Great Blue Hill" erupt> show (see "find sources" link above), this prank did get considerable attention at the time, and it continues to show up in books and articles about notable Aprils Fools pranks. The prank is already mentioned at Great Blue Hill, and I am inclined to think that's good enough. I might suggest a merge and redirect, but I am not sure if there's anything to merge that isn't already in the Great Blue Hill article, or that "Great Blue Hill eruption prank" is a likely search term. --Arxiloxos (talk) 03:07, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's only mentioned there because I put it there. I am planning on expanding it in the future, and hopefully will do a Did you know hook out of it, since there is coverage to scrape by there. Regardless, I don't mind a merge for now, as I can easily re-create it in the future. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 15:15, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to History of South Korea#Sixth Republic. This is without prejudice to the question of resplitting the target section back here based on our normal editorial processes. I have not deleted the history under the redirect here, . PWilkinson specifically argues that point, and I don't see content so problematic that it can't sit in the history. j⚛e deckertalk00:28, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Comment in response to the last comment, I would like to point out that the article for the French Fifth Republic is a well written article, where as the Sixth Republic of South Korea article has next-to-no content, cites no sources, and is all together not well written. The name of the article isn't even the correct name (it should be the Sixth Republic of Korea, as South Korea's legal name is the Republic of Korea). Also, the main article on the Republic of Korea has information about the Sixth Republic in its current version (see Republic of Korea#Government). BucaFan3 (talk) 18:25, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's no value in the current article. The strength of the French 5th republic article is that it addresses the difference of government and is sourced. The current article is unsourced and for that reason alone it should not stay. The subject itself deserves study but there's no point retaining a poor article about it. Chris Troutman (talk)05:32, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My thoughts:
(1) When I looked at Republic of Korea it was a redirect to South Korea, & has been since 8 December 2008. The latter is the general article on the country in all respects beyond simply the country's history & politics, whereas I believe Sixth Republic of South Korea would cover only a specific period of the history of its government. Would the nominator be thinking of another article?
(2) If this article is deleted, would a redirect be put in its place -- in other words, in this case would a merge have the same result as a delete? (I'm asking this to satisfy my own curiosity, not to make any point.) -- llywrch (talk) 15:26, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite or Redirect/Merge to History of South Korea#Sixth Republic, from which this article seems to have been split out about nine years ago. At least by the current terms of WP:SPLIT, that was then probably premature, but this would not be a problem except that almost all subsequent expansion and adding references have been done in the original article rather than here. The best solution would probably be to redo the split properly, replacing most of the text of this article with the relevant referenced text from the original article as it now stands and leaving a summary there. But, failing that, a redirect (perhaps leaving the history available, in case there is anything like infoboxes or the list of presidents that might be usable later) would certainly be OK. PWilkinson (talk) 10:39, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Compromise: Delete/Redirect As the creator of this discussion, I have been looking at each of the responses in this discussion. Seeing as how everyone has mixed feelings about the deletion of this article, everyone seems to have suggested a redirect as a compromise. I'm NOT going to retract my proposal about deletion, but I will suggest that a "Redirect Resolution" be put in place as a result of this discussion. BucaFan3 (talk) 19:55, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The 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.
(Since A7 apparently does not apply to schools, here goes...) Does not demonstrate notability/significance, it look like someone is trying to look so that the school looks bad, with things like The unlucky students [...] get the worst ecperince of their lives.. (t) Josve05a (c)00:52, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The 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.