< 2 May	4 May >

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

The result was keep. JohnCD (talk) 16:20, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hugh Zachary[edit]

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

Perhaps I'm missing something, but I see nothing here to suggest that this person is notable enough to meet WP:AUTHOR. Principal reference seems to be a self-published page. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:57, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I read the interview at UNC Chapel Hill. He's definitely sold a lot of books and he has a bestseller out there, but I couldn't find that he had any real notability. Malke 2010 (talk) 01:36, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Changing ivote. Found University of North Carolina Literary Review article. He has at least two best sellers and has written over at least two dozen books. Seems he's notable afterall. And a literary review is specific to writers so I've changed. I'll edit the article to include this. Malke 2010 (talk) 02:22, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Malke, Sadads (talk) 20:05, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:42, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

California Autism Foundation[edit]

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

Non-notable organization, fails WP:ORG. All the references in the article are self referential. I found a few independent articles [1] [2] but they are from a single source - the San Francisco Chronicle or its blogs - and thus they don't fulfill the requirement for significant coverage from multiple independent sources. Tagged for multiple problems since September 2013 with no improvement. Proposed deletion withdrawn by proposer. MelanieN (talk) 23:55, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems like a major organization. With significant coverage in SF Chronicle, yes, and also other sources if search on "California Autism Foundation -chronicle" just at main google search page. Among 5,240,000 hits:
- Apr 2, 2013, 11:33am PDT "John D. Rockefeller takes helm at California Autism Foundation", Renée Frojo, San Francisco Business Times, [3],
- same story also covered in "Cloverdale man leads national autism foundation", MARTIN ESPINOZA, THE PRESS DEMOCRAT April 2, 2013 [4]
- Reuters, carrying business press wire story: [5]
- According to Guidestar's copy of the nonprofit's financial report, it is a $5.6 million size organizatin (revenues, a bit more than its expenses), with 6.988m assets less liabilities to have 2.4 m net assets. Seems major enough to be covered here. I'm sure that there's lots more in other sources.
- The fact that the article hasn't been edited to respond to tags is a matter for editing, not AFD. --do ncr am 01:02, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because of the sources discovered by Doncram. Thanks. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:50, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for your research, Doncram, but I'm not impressed by coverage from the San Francisco Business Times, the Press-Democrat (which got a basic fact wrong in the headline - it's a Bay Area foundation, not a national foundation), and a press release. My nomination stands. Anyone else want to weigh in? --MelanieN (talk) 17:34, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to the sources found by Doncram, which appear to be independent, reliable, and cover the subject in detail. Those sources aren't in the article yet so we need to get them in there, but that's a matter of clean-up not AfD. —gorgan_almighty (talk) 00:08, 10 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 speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) TheMesquito^buzz 18:00, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Sale (film)[edit]

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

Page does not seem to meet notability guidelines, and contains no inline citations that signify notability. TheMesquito^buzz 23:38, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Excuse me nominator, but Persian language sources existed in the article you nominated. Their being mis-formatted is an editorial issue and not a deletion rationale. IE: Fars Nnews Borna News, Mehr News Farhang News Bani Film News Isna News

Keep per availability of non-English sources. Quite unlikely that an Iranian film will have English coverage. Persian language sources are perfectly fine. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 16:39, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:39, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kule Kidz Gråter Ikke[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NFILM - it appears to be a remake of something that might have won an award, but even that didn't warrant a film. Wikipedia is not a listing of all films ever made - they must be notable. the panda ₯’ 20:52, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. My searching is slow going since I don't speak Norweigan and am relying on a translation program, but I'm finding enough to assert notability. I've found a few reviews in the papers as well as other articles. I've asked for help from WP:NORWAY as well, in the hopes of getting a native speaker to search for additional sources to flesh it out. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:41, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've also done a little research on the other film and the book itself, and found that all three meet notability guidelines, so I've created articles for the other film and the novel. Although I will say in all fairness, some of the sources were harder to find at times. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:04, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Enough coverage to meet WP:GNG, esp. for being screened in the TIFF Kids International Film Festival. Also this article showing its English title is Kick It!, which can help non-Norwegian speakers. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:57, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is the 11th most watched movie on cinemas in Norway this far in 2014, seen by over 100 000. (source). --torstein (talk) 17:39, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article has been moved to Kule kidz gråter ikke as of 17:44, 5 May 2014 (UTC)‎. --Mz7 (talk) 01:30, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per massive improvements underscoring the notability the nominator missed in his possible WP:BEFORE. I would suggest to him that there is no dishonor in a withdrawal.Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 17:07, 7 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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:03, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shooting ranges in the United Kingdom[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a directory or a list of links, which is all this article contains. A comment on the talk page from 2011 asks about fixing this, but nothing has been done. Alex Muller 20:41, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - there are two shooting ranges (Stock Exchange Rifle Club and The Borough of Wandsworth Rifle Club) that are on the list and would likely be at home in a list of notable shooting ranges in the UK. But this isn't that. This is a list of external links that includes links to the only two notable ranges on the list. The introduction doesn't provide any meaningful inclusion criteria but given the nature of such things, the list may well include every shooting range in the UK, thus removing the need for strict inclusion criteria (don't know, don't live in the UK). I suppose I can't see any reason why the commentary at the top and the two notable examples couldn't be included at Gun politics in the United Kingdom. The list wouldn't seem to include the National Shooting Centre (an Olympic venue for which we don't have a stand-alone article). But I still don't think that three notable examples justifies a list like this. Stalwart111 02:35, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I came in expecting to find an article about shooting ranges or a list of UK shooting ranges that had articles written about them, not a collection of external links.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 00:30, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Totally agree with Mike_Searson - Assumed I would see lists ... Not external links... →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 20:16, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A list of purely external links with no information that couldnt be located through a web search Amortias (T)(C) 23:33, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Father Goose (talk) 15:56, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of tablet computers[edit]

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

Comparison of individual products/models. Wikipedia is not a catalog. This is an article that is perpetually out of date (somewhat relevant is WP:RECENT). An encyclopedia shouldn't duplicate a consumer electronics retailer's product comparison tool. Of course, if the point of the list is not to list current models but all tablet models, then the problem is WP:INDISCRIMINATE. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 20:24, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree that (part of) the list may already be a little out of date. However, many devices can still be attained from 2nd hand websites. The reason the article was made is not so much to list the commercial devices, but to allow people to compare these devices and pick the best (cheapest) option for them so that they can attain useful information trough it (ie via wikipedia). It wasn't made to compare the commercial devices an sich. KVDP (talk) 08:04, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- But Wikipedia is not a buying guide or a product comparison site. Allowing people to compare in order to pick the best is not a reason for keeping. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 15:55, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This list serves a purpose. Enough for it, not to be deleted. Harsh (talk) 13:23, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- That it serves a purpose or is WP:USEFUL is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 15:55, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm a programmer an often i need to use this list to know which tablets exist, and their specs such as width an height in pixels. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.136.33.133 (talk) 10:16, 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 result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 14:00, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

VersionOne, Inc.[edit]

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

Per WP:notability and WP:NOT Malke 2010 (talk) 20:17, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not meet notability guidelines. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:37, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was unable to find significant coverage of this company in reliable, independent sources. The current sources either lack independence or are passing mentions. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:58, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above, who have said it as well as I can. It's just not notable. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:18, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question, should JIRA, Rally Software, and Microsoft's Team Foundation Server also be deleted? Thanks, January2009 (talk) 22:04, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In order of asking: no, possibly, are you kidding? If your argument is that other stuff exists, don't bother. If you seriously want to nominate them go ahead and see where that concludes, but be aware of WP:BEFORE. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:33, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Walter! I use those three pages as test cases. Rally is a smaller company, and its product widely less used, JIRA is medium, Microsoft is, well huge. Im trying to understand VersionOne in context of these degrees. I would match VersionOne with JIRA, as far as implementation/use. However, its merits as a notable wiki page is determined primarily by references in news/literature. Is a determination influenced by page views? Looks like Rally, is looked at at a nice regular M-F cycle, by ~125 people each day. What about instances of citation by other Wiki articles? VersionOne is mentioned in a few other wiki pages. Its less likely to find content on these highly used, but smaller, applications- Lockeheed Martin doesnt publish its development processes, for example. However, does creating the wiki page add value, beyond the vendor page? Its hard to say. January2009 (talk) 22:51, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- You're welcome. The size of the company is immaterial. What matters is if the product or company is notable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:46, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Why should any Wikipedia editor care whether or not a page "adds value" to the company that is the subject of the article, January2009? Our task here is to create and improve neutral encyclopedia articles about notable topics, not to advance any company's interests. There are countless things rightly mentioned on Wikipedia which are not notable enough for their own articles. We have 4.5 million articles, many of which don't meet our standards. Feel free to nominate any of them for deletion, or to improve them. But we don't care too much about page views. A well-written article about a notable though obscure topic is just as welcome as our articles about Vladimir Putin or Barack Obama. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:54, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Comment: @Cullen328: exactly! This is the same argument January 2009 is using over on the AfD for Novavax, Inc. Malke 2010 (talk) 02:01, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- Thanks, Cullen328. As I meant it, the wiki page should add value to the wiki reader. There are a lot of people out in the business world trying to put answers to problems! They need info. Working for a Fortune 500 company myself, I often use wikipedia as supplement to other online resources to get information about obscure chemicals, IT applications, technologies. They are very notable to me! This conversation is useful. I wonder if there is another wiki project where this kind of need can be met. January2009 (talk) 01:56, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - You are confusing the concept of "notable" in Wikipedia terms with what you see as "useful", January2009. A street map of the subdivision where I live is useful to me, as is a list of my friends' e-mail addresses and birthdays. If I was considering investing in an obscure start-up, then every scrap of information about that venture would be useful to me as I did my due diligence. But none of that is appropriate for inclusion in an encyclopedia. We include only articles about topics which meet our notability guidelines. No exceptions allowed. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:21, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - I hate to nitpick, because I agree with the substance of what Cullen is saying here, but "No exceptions allowed" isn't exactly true; not only is WP:N a guideline (rather than a policy), there are cases on Wikipedia where it is appropriate to ignore all rules. But this is a case neither for an exception to the guideline nor to ignore all rules. It's just a non-notable subject. Sure they have a couple patents and some press releases out there, either of which may eventually net some coverage, but what's out there now is just not enough. Compared to the subject of the Novavax, Inc. article you created January2009 (I note that I have !voted keep in that article's AfD), this is a much different situation. While there are a number of mentions on LexisNexis, those are by and large press releases; the few independent sources that even mention VersionOne only do so in passing or are otherwise unreliable. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 09:20, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Mendaliv, not a nitpick at all. Your position is well reasoned and kindly stated and I very much I appreciate. I find I agree, this company does not meet notability. Thank you for your time looking at both articles. January2009 (talk) 02:53, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - Mendaliv, you are correct and I overstated my case a bit. Please allow me to restate my final point as follows: "Exceptions to our notability guidelines are quite rare, and this isn't such a case." Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:41, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:03, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Clancy's Classic Trilogy[edit]

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

This information would likely be noted in the articles it relates to rather than have its own article, as it's merely a collection of three existing games without any notable changes. Jns4eva ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) (talk) 20:08, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's pretty much just a disambiguation page at this point, when you get down to it. There just hasn't been enough coverage to really justify it having an article. We could always, at best, mention this in the articles. We could probably redirect this to the earliest game in the trilogy (I think it's Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon (video game)) and say "Tom Clancy's Classic Trilogy redirects here, for the other two games see ____ and ____". Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:45, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Tokyogirl79. Somebody will come looking for it. Malke 2010 (talk) 13:47, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tom Clancy#Video games (to later expand out summary style). There are a fair number of hits in a WP:VG/RS search, but the main ones (from IGN) can be summarized in the Tom Clancy article, if even necessary to include at all. I'm surprised there isn't a Tom Clancy games overview article, but that would be the natural resting place once it exists. For now, Clancy's article is a fine location. However, this package itself does not have independent notability for its own article. czar ♔ 03:23, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:18, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SmartyGames.com[edit]

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

Not seeing sources sufficient to pass WP:GNG. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 20:07, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to meet WP:GNG quite possibly an WP:SPA no edits for any page since creating this one Amortias (T)(C) 23:38, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No evidence found that this website is notable. AllyD (talk) 06:11, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Page was created by an SPA and left to languish but there was no info from RS to add anyway. Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It didn't pass a search engine test or have more than a listing in a video game reliable sources search. Please ping me if more (esp. non-English and offline) sources show in the future. czar ♔ 04:38, 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 deleted --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:55, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine Bosley[edit]

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

A local (regional?) TV news anchorwoman who appeared in the news a lot due to a single incident of inappropriate behaviour not directly related to her TV job. Fails WP:BIO1E on this basis - not only are all the reliable sources that discuss her in detail mainly about the controversial incident and its ramifications, but also the incident has had no lasting significance and is not the subject of ongoing coverage in reliable sources. In cases where a WP:BLP subject is either not notable or only borderline notable, we err on the side of doing least harm. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:06, 3 May 2014 (UTC) [reply]

This discussion has been linked at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard due to repeated past discussion of the article there. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:11, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would be entirely comfortable with us deleting the article per Demiurge's comments above. The only "notable" (nontrivial independent coverage) here seems to stem from this single event and its repercussions; without it, there is no basis for an article, and per BLP1E we should not draw notability from a single ephemeral event like this. Andrew Gray (talk) 21:22, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- I find it odd that this article has been up for nearly 9 years, and for most of that time has been in deplorable shape...no references, poor sentence structure, but it never got deleted then. So now, after I put in a lot of work to add references and clean things up, NOW you want to delete it. That just doesn't sit right...where was the hurry to delete it when it had sat dormant for years in horrible shape? Vjmlhds (talk) 21:47, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- You're right, it sucks, it's really stupid, and very unfair. It's been through the wrangler at WP:BLPN three times, and no-one thought (perhaps) that we just really don't need such an article. I am sorry that it wastes your time. Just to dispel any possible notions; I had never heard of Bosley before seeing her mentioned at BLPN, and I don't remember hearing of her outside Wikipedia even after that. (I don't live in the USA.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:03, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The "hurry" isn't a hurry at all. I tagged it for notability a few months ago. I left it alone. But you decided to remove the tag, several times, even though it was being discussed and had been restored by separate editors. That's the biggest reason for the "hurry" Niteshift36 (talk) 00:59, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- To be honest, I'm surprised it was never nominated, but I suppose better late than never. I've had this on my watchlist for eight years or so (after discovering vandalism & cleaning it up back in 2006) and a couple of times when I've seen it crop up I think "...do we really need this page after all?". But I never quite got around to doing anything about it... Andrew Gray (talk) 22:07, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - User:Niteshift36 deserves credit for making clear the real issue. I've been aware of this problem for a long time but never really took it forward properly. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:30, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per BLP1E. I had to strip (ha!) a mess of BLP-infringing material out of this article in 2006. That's how long this has been a problem. If we're still having issues with this article, and it's still in poor shape, then it's time for it to go. Is she notable? Well, show me independent RS coverage of her career that has nothing to do with the incident and I will reassess my !vote. Gamaliel (talk) 22:55, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Well, the article isn't really in "poor" shape, after the work I put in on it. I believe there's enough there keep the article. Getting fired from her job for nudie pics was one story which got national press, and suing Hustler (and winning) was another. It's not really a continuation of the first story. Vjmlhds (talk) 23:56, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO1E Malke 2010 (talk) 00:44, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In the end, this is BLP1E. Simply being a news anchor doesn't make someone notable. Simply having a public job doesn't do it. Being on TV doesn't. If we look at look at WP:CREATIVE, She doesn't meet those criteria. She hasn't done anything notable as a journalist. No notable awards. She simply has a job. Local mentions in the media don't do it, as notability requires significant coverage. So we're left with her Key West escapades. As I said on my talk page, the Hustler lawsuit is merely an extension of the same event. If item A (the pictures) didn't happen, item B simply doesn't exist. The fact that there were a couple of years in between doesn't negate that. Maybe if this had been a different set of pictures or some "stolen" home video, you might have a (weak) case. I can't see how one is divorced of the other. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:55, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I see the writing on the wall. While I don't agree, I see where this is heading, so I will stand down. Vjmlhds (talk) 02:00, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BLP1E. The article is simply a place to coatrack the "controversy" section—omg someone was nude and there was a flutter of excitement. No notability past BLP1E. Johnuniq (talk) 06:11, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Im unable to find sources to establish notability base on her job as a news anchor. National coverage points to a single event, BLP1. --Jmundo (talk) 14:57, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No criticism is meant by this toward the editors who have worked on this article in good faith, but this is the epitome of BLP1E. Worse, keeping articles like this (especially when they fail the BLP1E criteria) is a really good way to make sure Wikipedia doesn't lose its reputation as a boys' club that uses plausibly deniable excuses to shame and belittle women and keep them in their place, over there. Geez people. --NellieBly (talk) 20:14, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, clear WP:BLP1E case. ukexpat (talk) 17:41, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn by requester, per discussion. RGloucester — ☎ 00:15, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2014 Kramatorsk clashes[edit]

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

This article is a WP:FORK. It was created yesterday, for no apparent reason, and contains no original content. All of it is either a duplication of or copied from 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine, Timeline of the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine, or Donetsk People's Republic. We don't need another timeline. We've already got one. There is no indication that the separate events described here are found grouped together in reliable sources as the 'Kramatorsk clashes'. Let's get this out of the way. RGloucester — ☎ 19:58, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As the creator of this article I would like to state the following. Wikipedia always urges that material be relegated to other newer sub-articles from another article so that article's size could be cut-down. Which in fact I intended to do today. I intended to cut down those other two articles to only the basic information since the info is now in this one. EkoGraf (talk) 20:01, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is unacceptable, however, because it is giving WP:UNDUE weight to certain events in ways that are not found in reliable sources. Furthermore, these events are not at all described in reliable sources as the 'Kramatorsk clashes', nor are they grouped together. It is functionally a piece of original research. RGloucester — ☎ 20:01, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, the timeline already is a sub-article for that purpose. RGloucester — ☎ 20:06, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The timeline is a sub-article but it does not contain all of the information that is here. Also, there are multiple precedens for this kind of article. I would refer you to Rif Dimashq clashes (November 2011–March 2012), Idlib Governorate clashes (September 2011–March 2012), 2012 Aleppo Governorate clashes, Deir ez-Zor clashes (2011–present) where you don't have any source calling the events in that way but the names of the articles and both the templates are virtually the same to this one. I can find more examples if you like. EkoGraf (talk) 20:08, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, as we all know, one can read the essay WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Just because other stuff does exist, that does not mean it should exist. Wikipedia is not based on precedent. Regardless, those are quite different situations, as they are not adequately covered elsewhere, and because they are large, extended events over a period of time. Everything in this article is covered elsewhere adequately, and avoids giving WP:UNDUE weight. This article has no basis for existence. If you're trying to imply the events here are comparable to the events in those articles, then you are using a WP:CRYSTAL ball, and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. At present, these events do not have notability on their own as a specific chain of events. RGloucester — ☎ 20:13, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. RGloucester — ☎ 20:07, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you would read that policy more carefully it states further In consideration of precedent and consistency, though, identifying articles of the same nature that have been established and continue to exist on Wikipedia may provide extremely important insight into general notability of concepts, levels of notability... The Kramatorsk incidents/clashes have been notable enough in the media since both pro-Western and pro-Russian media have been reporting on them in detail every time they appear. Also, that policy states the exact opposite should maybe used as well. That as much this article should not exist and the others should, it works viceversa as well, with maybe this one needing to exist and the others don't. And the crystal ball policy does not apply hear because I wasn't making a prediction, but a comparison. EkoGraf (talk) 20:16, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That would be true, except that this does not meet the core policies of the project. I'd also like to clarify that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is an essay, not a policy. They haven't been notable on their own. All incidents regarding Kramatorsk in the western media have been reported in larger articles about the unrest in Donetsk Oblast as a whole, as an example. We've matched that style of coverage well, as there simply isn't enough content to warrant an independent article. You are making a prediction. You are implying that these events will continue happening, and thereby warrant keeping this article, even if it does not meet the standards at present. RGloucester — ☎ 20:18, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

as there simply isn't enough content to warrant an independent article Wikipedia does not have a policy on how much content is needed for an independent article. You are implying that these events will continue happening, and thereby warrant keeping this article I am not implying or predicting anything, I am stating fact, and fact is these events have already BEEN occurring for the last three weeks. And that time period is with which this article deals with. In any case, I stated my compromise proposition, that if other editors agree, I will cut-down those other two articles in material so this one wouldn't be a fork, which in fact was my original intention today. That way your own objectional issue to this article will no longer apply. But now I will wait before doing so until other editors voice their oppinions.EkoGraf (talk) 20:25, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My objection is in you giving these events WP:UNDUE weight. The other articles cannot be trimmed, as that would be giving these events WP:UNDUE weight. It is inappropriate, at yet, for there to be yet another article dealing with events that have already been adequately described elsewhere, and which do not have enough notability to separate them out as a separate 'Kramatorsk clashes' article. RGloucester — ☎ 20:29, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They are not notable in your opinion, not the media who report on them daily. And your argument that isn't true because they are talked about as only part of the larger unrest in Ukraine is simply in-correct because you have whole news articles devoted to specific incidents, for example the attack on the airbase which left up to 11 anti-Kiev fighters dead, or the alleged killing of 10 civilians. EkoGraf (talk) 20:33, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We are WP:NOTNEWS. We don't write journalistic articles. We look at the overall schema of things, in terms of historicity. They are notable in the context of the overall unrest, they are not notable enough for their own encyclopaedic article. RGloucester — ☎ 20:34, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, your opinion. And I would say some of the things you just said are in contrast to Wikipedia'c policy on notability (ignoring what sources/media regard as notable). I would even venture to say that we deciding on our own the overall schema of things is Original Research in itself. EkoGraf (talk) 20:40, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We don't decide. We examine coverage, and give WP:DUE weight. RGloucester — ☎ 20:43, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I think this article should not be deleted. I'm not trying to take sides, though. -Arbutusthetree — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arbutus the tree (talk • contribs) 20:24, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom, it's a FORK. Also, judging by their edit history EkoGraf and Arbutus the tree are probably the same user (the cross interest in Ukrainian and Syrian topics). I also seem to remember that there was a portfolio of other SPA accounts with the same interests that got recently banned as sock puppets but I'll have to dig out the relevant SPI.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:54, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am highly offended by your accusation Volunteer Marek. I only became interested in Ukraine this morning. For the last three years I have been editing Syrian articles and before that Libyan (check my edit history). And that other user seems more interested in Iraq than Syria. I'm seeing he edited only one Syrian article Free Syrian Army (once) and the semi-Syrian article ISIS (several times). EkoGraf (talk) 21:14, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Volunteer Marek, i'm a bit confused what's going on, because EkoGraf and Arbutus the tree are not the same users. I run my own independent user, and it's ridiculous to claim EkoGraaf and Arbutus the tree are the same users. Plus, I only just found out today that the "Kramatorsk Clashes" page had been made. Plus, i only just signed up for wikipedia recently. -Arbutus the Tree — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arbutus the tree (talk • contribs) 21:54, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Cutting down on those articles and merging that information here would be helpful for people who want to know the details about Kramatorsk alone, rather than to search for it in the timeline. There is also information from Siege of Sloviansk about Kramatorsk that should be here, such as the attack on Gen. Vasyl Krutov. I myself would like to see this article expanded, and believe the creation of more sub-articles for the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine is a positive thing. The Siege of Sloviansk, which was originally named the Sloviansk Standoff, could arguably have been deleted or merged over the same issue. SkoraPobeda (talk) 16:11, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not true, however, because the Siege of Sloviansk article is highly notable in its own right, and only pertains to one ongoing event. The same cannot be said for the Kramatorsk article, which puts together unrelated events that are not directly connected. RGloucester — ☎ 16:24, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But the Ukrainian military is carrying out the "anti-terrorist" operation in and around Kramatorsk similarly to Sloviansk. The only difference here is that they've entered the city. Also, multiple media outlets are just now reporting of the fighting in Kramatorsk, giving it notability that wasn't there before. SkoraPobeda (talk) 16:56, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is somewhat true. However, the article, as it stands, isn't about the military operation at present. It is lumping together all events in the city over a longer duration. This does not seem appropriate. I might be accepting on article that only dealt with the present military events, which perhaps would now be justified by reliable sources. However, it should not include events not related to the present skirmishes. RGloucester — ☎ 17:18, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I agree with keeping the article with present events. SkoraPobeda (talk) 17:40, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this article could be merged with the Seige of Sloviansk?--Arbutus the tree (talk) 17:56, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Two different towns, two different events, two different military operations. EkoGraf (talk) 18:58, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's true —Arbutus the tree (talk) 19:02, 4 May 2014 (UTC)be[reply]

I don't agree with that merger, but User:EkoGraf has just hit the nail on the head. The article here can exist if it describes the present military operation. However, lumping other events in that are not part of that military operation goes against the way reliable sources cover the events. I'll say definitively that I'll withdraw my deletion request if the scope is limited to the present military operation, and if this article expands its coverage of that operation. RGloucester — ☎ 19:09, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And what was the Army's capture of the airbase, in which 11 militants were killed, if not a military operation? EkoGraf (talk) 19:12, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was, but it wasn't separate from the overall events. The present operation in Kramatorsk is independent of the others, at least in the manner that it is reported upon. RGloucester — ☎ 19:22, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well what do you think should happen to this article? Should it be deleted, merged, kept with present information, or kept with information dating back to April 15?--Arbutus the tree (talk) 19:20, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The military has been conducting a military operation there since the day when they captured the airfield. EkoGraf (talk) 19:23, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They are not the same operation. There was a new offensive, over the past couple of days. This is entirely separate from the re-capture of the airfield weeks ago. RGloucester — ☎ 19:26, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Allright guys, I have 3 solutions we could try:

1. Keep the "Kramatorsk Clashes" but have information that is only from the May offensive
2. Keep the "Kramatorsk Clashes" and have information from the early operation (April 15.)
3. Make 2 seperate articles. One could been called the "1st Kramatorsk Offensive", which is from April 15-16. The 2nd could be the "2nd Kramatorsk Offensive", which is from the May Offensive. --Arbutus the tree (talk) 20:56, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm ether for option 2 or option 3. User:RGloucester? EkoGraf (talk) 21:00, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neither are acceptable. Both give WP:UNDUE weight. RGloucester — ☎ 21:12, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so that didn't work. So would it be good to create an article called the "Kramatorsk" offensive with only information about the recent offensive? Allthough if that is the solution, in the "history" part of the article, it should say that Ukrainian troops captured the airfield on April 15 and unsuccessfully tried to take the town a day later. Is that okay? --Arbutus the tree (talk) 21:19, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would accept this solution. A small background section is not a problem. RGloucester — ☎ 21:41, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you RTGloucester for your cooperation. Do you think this is okay EkoGraf? This solution would have the article "Kramstorsk Offensive" with information up from May 2 and a background section with the military operation on April 15 with info about the airfield capture? --Arbutus the tree (talk) 21:49, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that in essence option number 2, just putting the airfield captured into a background section? :P In any case, agree. Also include the militant attack on the airfield that destroyed the helicopter and the place in the background section. EkoGraf (talk) 23:15, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@EkoGraf: It isn't the same to me, as it avoids lumping together separate events. The article's scope will be the offensive, but background details will be presented as such so that the reader is informed of what led to the offensive. My problem with this article, as I've said, is the way it lumps together events in ways that are not found in sources, and which give WP:UNDUE weight. Regardless, if you are willing to accept this proposal, I will withdraw my deletion request. RGloucester — ☎ 23:34, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so if the April 15. offensive and the militant attack on the helicopter were included in the background section of the article, would that be okay?—Arbutus the tree (talk) 23:36, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:38, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Richard L. Thompson[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Minor ISKCON creationist who published some books, but not enough to be notable via WP:AUTHOR and isn't otherwise notable for WP:BIO. jps (talk) 19:19, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. 101.117.1.194 (talk) 00:58, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. 101.117.1.194 (talk) 00:58, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plenty of coverage in WP:RS, and according to sources (both in the article and found on searching) the main figure articulating Hare Krishna views of science. Passes WP:GNG. -- 101.117.1.194 (talk) 00:58, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This was kept at the previous AfD on 21 October 2011. -- 101.117.1.194 (talk) 01:10, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I said it in 2011 and I still feel the same way: I consider his views to be hogwash, but he was notable. Sources in the article demonstrate that. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:05, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cullen328. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:06, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 13:59, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jerome C. Glenn[edit]

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

Problematic article, heavily edited by COI editors, still containing some flattery (cited as an expert on Future studies methodology by RAND Corporation) sourced to dead links. None of that is a reason for deletion of course. However, notability is claimed, but not supported by facts. 1/ Director of The Millennium Project (itself tagged for notability for more than a year) does not seem to be a notable position. 2/ Being a faculty member at a non-accredited university (Singularity University), does not meet WP:PROF. 3/Author of reports and articles in itself is not sufficient for notability. Web of Science lists 51 articles for "Glenn JC", cited 206 times in total, for an h-index of 8. Worse, the 4 highest-cited articles seem to be by someone with the same name, but publishing in medicine. That leaves the highest-cited article with 13 citations in total and this "Glenn JC" and an h-index of 3. As so often, Google Scholar gives higher citation rates, with 251 hits for State of the Future. However, looking at those hits many of them (especially in later pages) are from websites, not from academic publications. The second-highest cited article only gets 41 hits. 4/ The article claims 2 honorary doctorates and 1 honorary professorship. If these would be at reputable universities, that might show notability, but unfortunately, if I Google "Jerome C. Glenn" I get WP, Facebook, his organization, etc, but not these honors. His bio at his organization's website lists Universidad Ricardo Palma and Universidad Franz Tamayo as the places that bestowed these honors on him, which I find less than overwhelming (even i this could be verified). 5/ The article claims that he "has keynoted over 200 organizations around the world". After 1-4, I start having problems believing this, I must admit. In sum, this BLP clearly fails WP:ACADEMIC and neither is there any evidence that it meets WP:GNG. Hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 18:46, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 19:05, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for reasons given amply above. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:45, 3 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. The State of the Future reports have reasonably high citation counts on Google scholar, but I think any notability there goes to the Millenium Project rather than him personally. And there seems to be nothing else of note; in particular I don't see the evidence for WP:PROF nor WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:01, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing found that could qualify it for WP:GNG, no links to any of the 200 organisations does damage its credibility as well. Amortias (T)(C) 23:48, 8 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 Withdrawn by nominator

Novavax, Inc.[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Novavax, Inc.

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

WP:Notability; WP:NOT and WP:RS This company and it's research is not notable in the scientific world. The sources are all from sources related to the company. Reads like a WP:Advert. Malke 2010 (talk) 17:38, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Added note: All of the sources are primary sources. 7 of the 9 sources being used are directly from Novavax. And the other two are websites and not RS. Malke 2010 (talk) 10:38, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 May 3. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 17:49, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Probably~~ keep. I haven't done the research, but the fact that they're on the NYSE is a fairly certain sign that there will be enough sources out there. I know WP:LISTED says that being on an exchange doesn't itself confer notability, but it also says that experience has shown that in almost every case such companies easily pass WP:GNG anyway. No comment on whether this violates WP:ADVERT at this time, but I think if there's a significant problem it should be fixable. Worst case, stubbify it. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:16, 4 May 2014 (UTC) Changed to keep based on the sources I produced below. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:58, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, it fails WP:GNG. Also, not on NYSE. It's on Nasdaq as are thousands of other non-noteworthy companies just like it. Malke 2010 (talk) 10:30, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, you're right, it's on NASDAQ, just that ((NYSE)) pulls it up on the NYSE's page. I didn't see the fine print. Anyway, it's listed, which unsurprisingly means there are literally garbage trucks full of content about the company out there. Yes, a lot seems to be trivial, and some seems to just be reprints of their press releases. Let me rephrase my argument above: it seems more likely than not that this company meets WP:CORP. Have you done WP:BEFORE? If so please show your work. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:45, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You should probably look at the article and the company press releases being used to source the article, as well as read the relevant policy about What wikipedia is not and WP:notability and reliable sources. The article, as the tag on the article notes, is based on information that comes directly from the company, not reliable third party sources. It fails WP:CORP. Malke 2010 (talk) 17:27, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOFIXIT, or demonstrate that you can't. AfD is not for cleanup, follow WP:BEFORE please. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:39, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did do WP:BEFORE. What makes you think I didn't? Malke 2010 (talk) 17:45, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You looked for sources and tried to improve the article? You never said anything about your search, which surely involved crafting some creative searches to try and separate the wheat from the chaff in terms of the tens of thousands of hits on the news archives and academic databases. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:50, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article can't be improved without reliable sources which Google searches show do not exist, ergo the AfD. Malke 2010 (talk) 18:22, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong:

Lamb, Robyn (22 July 2004). "Gaithersburg-based Novavax severs its ties with King Pharmaceuticals". The Daily Record.
Day, Kathleen (8 July 1996). "A New Course for Novavax; The Drugmaker Spinoff Is Going It Alone". The Washington Post. p. F15.
Chea, Terence (9 January 2001). "Novavax Signs Joint Sales Agreement". The Washington Post. p. E5.
Lamb, Robyn (9 August 2004). "Novavax Inc. to relocate to Pennsylvania". The Daily Record.
VandeWater, Judith (29 December 2000). "MARYLAND COMPANY BUYS FIELDING PHARMACEUTICAL". St. Louis Post-Dispatch. p. C9.
Barbaro, Michael (5 December 2002). "Grand Jury Probing Possible Theft at Novavax". The Washington Post. p. E05.
Barbaro, Michael (30 September 2003). "Novavax Gets $19 Million to Develop HIV Vaccine". The Washington Post. p. E05.

It took me all of five minutes. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:48, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

These are items from 10-14 years ago: 2000, 2001, 2003. Did they develop that HIV vaccine they got the $19 million for? Are they noted for that? What vaccines are they noted for? There is nothing here that makes this company notable as a developer of vaccines. These news articles are all based on the company's press releases and the grand jury probe of theft at the company. They moved to Pennsylvania. they severed ties with another company. That's not real WP:Notability. Malke 2010 (talk) 21:29, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NTEMP: Just because the evidence of notability is old doesn't mean the subject is not notable. And the fact that the articles were stimulated by a press release or a grand jury investigation does not mean they are not "independent of the subject" within the meaning of WP:GNG. I respectfully suggest you withdraw this nomination given you clearly did not comply with WP:BEFORE. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:28, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, you are making the erroneous assumption that this subject needs to be a notable developer of vaccines as opposed to a notable company. There is no such notability guideline as WP:NVACC. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:33, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I created the page, and am new to Wikipedia. Im just learning the process, and found this discussion just now (I had mistakenly thought conversation should occur on user talk pages and the article talk page). If you regard the Companies in the NASDAQ Biotechnology Index, you will see many companies in simliar situation. It seems some are tagged for notability, some arent. But I think this tag for deletion is unique to the Novavax article (unless others have been created and deleted). Its possible to consider that a determination on this company's page would have implications to the other pages. Thanks for the discussion, I didnt know people were looking at this. Regards.January2009 (talk) 22:01, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi January. Unfortunately, I think you'll find that the argument that this page may be being treated differently than other pages doesn't carry a lot of weight in deletion discussions. What matters, more than anything, is whether this particular company is notable pursuant to Wikipedia guidelines for notability (see WP:CORP and WP:GNG). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:33, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You keep missing the point which is that this company is not notable for vaccine development. All the article could say at this point, using the sources you've shown, is that it had issues with theft, it severed ties from another company, and it hasn't been in the news since 2003. There's nothing notable there to justify a Wikipedia article. The one thing it should be notable for, vaccines, it isn't notable for. This could explain the reason the sources are 10-14 years old. Malke 2010 (talk) 19:06, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not addressing your "point" because it's not a valid argument. From WP:CORP:

An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources.
[...]
"Notability" is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance." No matter how "important" editors may personally believe an organization to be, it should not have a stand-alone article in Wikipedia unless reliable sources independent of the organization have discussed it.
[...]
However, smaller organizations and their products can be notable, just as individuals can be notable. Arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations or their products.

Further down, in WP:LISTED:

[S]ufficient independent sources almost always exist for [listed] companies, so that notability can be established using the primary criterion discussed above. Examples of such sources include independent press coverage, analyst reports, and profiles by companies such as Hoover's (a commercial source). Accordingly, article authors should make sure to seek out such coverage and add references to such articles to properly establish notability.

The criterion you propose here—namely that a corporation need have "importance" in connection with its primary products—is not only novel, it goes against how WP:N has been applied for a very long time. Furthermore, given your claim that no significant coverage existed at the beginning of this discussion and refusal to discuss your attempt to search for such coverage in any detail, followed by my providing evidence of significant coverage, suggests that you are likely also incorrect about there being no significant coverage of its products either. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:46, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, there's a Hoover's in-depth profile on Novavax. Given WP:LISTED explicitly endorses Hoover's profiles as an example of a source that can be used to satisfy the primary criterion. Here's the non-paywalled version: http://www.hoovers.com/company-information/cs/company-profile.Novavax_Inc.22005264f77eb563.html. The full version is much longer. Reuters Knowledge Direct has a similar profile. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:52, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And if you want a source talking about one of their products, you might be interested in this article: Hall, Gwendolyn (13 November 2003). "Emulsion approved for estrogen replacement: short-term use". Family Practice News. p. 28. That isn't a reprint of a press release either, it's an actual article. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:45, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just wondering why you advocate so aggressively for this article to remain when it seems clear this is not a notable company? Malke 2010 (talk) 21:53, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aggressively? This is basic procedure anybody should follow before nominating an article for AfD. Even by your inflated interpretation of WP:CORP, you can't refute that the Hoover's profile satisfies every prong of the primary criterion except "multiple" (i.e., we need more than one source that does this). Can you honestly say that every single source I've submitted above is insufficient to push this subject over the edge? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:22, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Couple more sources:

Shaw, Alan (9 May 2012). "New technologies for new influenza vaccines". Vaccine. 30 (33): 4927–4933. doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2012.04.095. ISSN 0264-410X. (one paragraph on p. 4929 discussing Novavax processes in comparison to other companies')
Sheridan, Cormac. "Flu vaccine makers upgrade technology—and pray for time". Nature Biotechnology. 27 (6): 489–491. doi:10.1038/nbt0609-489. (two paragraphs discussing Novavax processes from a business setting)
Datamonitor's Marketline has published fairly extensive (multipage) SWOT analyses of Novavax yearly since 2007.

And this is stuff that actually talks about Novavax's scientific aspects rather than the pure business and finance aspects (and there's a boatload of material on that in publications like the Wall Street Journal and Washington Post). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:08, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the additions of citations to recent publication in the New England Journal of Medicine regarding the company's pandemic flu vaccine should be enough to settle the notability issue. NEJM is the worlds foremost medical journal and publication in it speaks volumes. Additionally, Novavax was just discussed in Wired magazine regarding the MERS outbreak, for which a citation was also added.XerxesImmortal (talk) 18:07, 7 May 2014 (UTC) — XerxesImmortal (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Between NEJM and Journal of Virology (Spanish Flu Vaccine)articles it is hard to argue non-notability. Both are reliable sources and both found company notable. User:GvacWP — Preceding undated comment added 19:28, 7 May 2014 (UTC) — GvacWP (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:38, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:38, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:38, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:38, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - the Hoovers source seems okay and the bits and pieces listed above probably tip it over the edge. The lack of newer coverage makes verification of more recent activity difficult but WP:NOTTEMP means that's not really a consideration. Stalwart111 15:18, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: Per WP:NCCORP this article should be moved to Novavax without the Inc. if kept. I'd do it myself but since the AfD is pending I'm not going to fool around with it. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:32, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another Note to closing admin :) There doesn't seem a real consensus to keep or delete. Please relist the AfD when it expires here. The sources being used here are being represented as if they are scientific, peer-reviewed studies of Novavax research, which they are not. Rather, they are simply public relations releases in multiple publications, some of which are very old. Even The New England Journal of Medicine source is not a research article but simply a letter to the editor from Novavax. There really isn't anything here that shows the company is notable. As you can see, there are two SPA's here, as well. One hasn't edited anything but Novavax. It seems it could use another go at listing for others to weigh in. Thanks. Malke 2010 (talk) 00:44, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. I think the general coverage allows this to meet WP:GNG (just) from the perspective that the sources provide some coverage of the company and its work. Whether or not the sources are sufficient (per WP:MEDRS) to verify scientific claims about research methodologies and results is another matter entirely. Let's get more eyes. Stalwart111 01:24, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Stalwart111: you might want to strike through your 'weak keep' in that case. And yes, the sources are all primary when they should be secondary review articles to meet the neutral pov requirement. Malke 2010 (talk) 03:52, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You mean the weak part? Not following. I think it passes GNG, but only just. So I think it should be kept, but only just. Thus "weak keep". Stalwart111 04:02, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If NPOV is an issue, it can be addressed through editing. The only valid argument I've seen for deletion would be on notability grounds, and I've proven, amply, that this company is notable. Though honestly, your rationale has changed so many times through this discussion, whether it's that the coverage needs to be of the company's products rather than their corporate business (which is a distinction WP:CORP doesn't embrace), whether it needs to be of their scientific discoveries (which is likely impossible if you know anything about the nature of academic publications and biotech patents), or whether the coverage needs to be not only by independent authors/publications but cannot have been triggered by a press release... I don't know what you want at this point or what you'll want tomorrow. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:17, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The lack of notability and RS are the reasons I put it forward for deletion. It seems it would benefit from a relisting to get the opinions of others. At this point there is no real consensus. Malke 2010 (talk) 13:46, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Sources found by Mendaliv seem to indicate the subject meets the GNG and unless things have changed dramatically in a few years the GNG is the threshold, WP:CORP etc. are heuristics (provided the GNG is met). Protonk (talk) 18:58, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They have Wired magazine and Hoovers, for the business side. But those sources can't support any scientific claims as they are not scientific peer-reviewed journals. If the company claimed it had just invented an HIV/AIDS vaccine, I would go to the literature for verification, and not Wired mag or Wall Street Journal. Also, there's still the question of notability. The problem is, this company claims to be working on these vaccines, but no scientific peer reviewed results are out there. It currently is relying on primary articles and Novavax's website, which we don't use per WP:RS in general, and WP:MEDRS specifically. If we keep it, it needs a rewrite with those primary sources eliminated, including the Novavax website, etc. It will be a stub, which is fine. Lots of articles are stubs. But I still don't see the notability. This is like a company claiming to make fabulous toasters, but the toasters aren't on sale anywhere. I would easily change to keep if someone would show me where they've actually come up with a vaccine, and had those vaccines approved by the FDA and the research scrutinized in a scientific peer-reviewed journal article. Malke 2010 (talk) 20:53, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah thanks, I read the rest of your comments in the thread. There's no basis in policy or practice for a company who makes medical products to need to have peer reviewed articles about those products in order to meet our notability guidelines. As has been pointed out to you multiple times, the sources found by other editors in cursory searches which should've been done BEFORE nominating are independent and do seem to allow the subject to meet the GNG. Protonk (talk) 21:49, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's also no significant coverage for this company. It's business news is episodic and based on company press releases. Right now the only thing this company seems notable for is a declining stock price. But as I said, it could easily be a stub, but it can't have edits backed by company press releases. WP:RS regarding primary sources still applies. Malke 2010 (talk) 22:36, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No significant coverage? The Hoover's profile gets you halfway there, and I strongly suspect the Marketline SWOT analyses count. Fill the gaps with the business news and you've got notability. None of the sources I've provided to establish notability are company press releases. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:31, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is this company notable for and where is the secondary RS to show that this company is notable for X? Is this significant coverage? Malke 2010 (talk) 02:09, 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 Withdrawn by requestor, per discussion. RGloucester — ☎ 19:28, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of states that declared independence during the unrest in East Ukraine[edit]

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

This is content that was forked from 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine, and also substantially recreates articles that were deleted, like Kharkov People's Republic. RGloucester — ☎ 16:31, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - these things keep popping up. They might not indivivually be notable, but it is notably that secessionist states keep being proclaimed. --Bellerophon5685 (talk) 17:06, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is. That's why we've written all about it in 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine. Hence why this is merely a fork! RGloucester — ☎ 17:10, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge per WP:Fork Malke 2010 (talk) 20:23, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine currently lacks a list of states that have declared independence. This list ought to be moved into the main article so that it can be easily accessed by those who may be interested in it. --William Case Morris (talk) 20:36, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. I think it's a good idea if this article is merged. -Arbutus the tree — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arbutus the tree (talk • contribs) 22:11, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't be opposed to such a merger, however, some rewriting would have to be done. RGloucester — ☎ 23:20, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but what sorta editing would need to be done? --Arbutus the tree (talk) 23:57, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Copyediting, and the alignment of reference names and citations templates with those in the main article. RGloucester — ☎ 00:03, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Helpful list, maybe merge in the future when the declarations have settled down?

The declarations have 'settled down'. The Kharkiv one failed after a few hours, and the Odessa one was a hoax. Donetsk is the only one that has any clout, though Luhansk also has a nominal existence. RGloucester — ☎ 03:19, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge - This list is somewhat reliable, and it tells people which states are currently and not currently independent. Recently, there have been protests in Odessa and the police headquarters are under attack, maybe if they get in there a people's republic could be declared, but they just released the pirsoners inside so things are calming down.--Arbutus the tree (talk) 14:37, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Merge. This information should be portrayed in one way or another, but it should definitely not have its own article. Seems to me someone has an agenda out to destroy Ukraine. § DDima 17:27, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, I have changed my mind. Maybe it's best if this article is moved with 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine so people who want to read it can just scroll down and look at the page.—Arbutus the tree (talk) 17:54, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Arbutus the tree: Since you are the author of the article, would you consent to an early closing as 'Merge'? I'd be happy to help with the merger. RGloucester — ☎ 18:22, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I would like to consent to an early closing as Merge. Thanks for offering your help with the merge.--Arbutus the tree (talk) 18:27, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've merged the content to 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine, and cleaned it up. Don't be afraid to speak up if you are opposed. I've withdraw my deletion request. RGloucester — ☎ 19:25, 4 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:56, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RJ Preet[edit]

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

No evidence of notability per WP:People Dougweller (talk) 15:05, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article could have been WP:STICKYPRODed, since it is a BLP with no sources. The articles is written promotionally and is completely unsourced. Appears to be a case of WP:TOOSOON, as her career is only a few years long, involved only in a few local radio shows. Fails WP:BIO. Mz7 (talk) 15:43, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability yet. —Psychonaut (talk) 16:20, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Still no evidence of notability. Malke 2010 (talk) 20:45, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as sadly no indication of notability. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 21:15, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Policy-based arguments lead to "keep" - Bearian and Oakshade the strongest the panda ₯’ 22:37, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly McDowell[edit]

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

This is a page that asserts the person was mayor of a city, but no where explains anything they did as such that would make them notable. Much of the article is written in first person, and it relies heavily on very local sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:17, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-Being a mayor is notable enough. Though I do think more expert knowledge is needed. (Interesting-nothing about where they were political or anything like that though) Wgolf (talk) 17:51, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - Being a mayor doesn't necessarily make you notable. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 20:41, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Being the mayor of a small city (16K) without any special achievements isn't enough. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:43, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep articles such as this one discuss his term in office and the notable work he did. I think it's enough, but I suppose it could be considered "regional". Candleabracadabra (talk) 21:33, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being a mayor of a major city may make you notable. Being the mayor of a city of 16,000 people certainly does not. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:52, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - being mayor of a smallish city is not enough, but he probably passes my standards as a notable lawyer. He's been a city politician for over a decade, he was on regional commissions, he's been chair of the Independent Cities Association (which I understand is a big deal in California), and he's been chair of a large sanitation district. Considering all the possible news sources online, I'd say he also passes GNG. Bearian (talk) 21:39, 30 April 2014 (UTC) PS - he fought the airport authority and won a million-plus-dollar settlement; that might count as a major accomplishment. Bearian (talk) 21:41, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for linking to your notability criteria for attorneys. I have trouble identifying which criteria you believe this subject meets. PS the sources only say he was "involved" in the talks that resulted in a deal with the airport authority. --MelanieN (talk) 18:49, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 14:57, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This guy is a perfect illustration of why we DON'T presume mayors to be notable - certainly not mayors of smallish cities. He has received almost no independent coverage, and there is nothing to suggest that the coverage is out there if we could just find it. According to WP:POLITICIAN, "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article". This person has not received significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Claims here that "mayors are notable" are based on WP:Common outcomes#politicians; however, it states the opposite: "Municipal politicians are not inherently notable just for being in politics, but neither are they inherently non-notable just because they are in local politics. Each case is evaluated on its own individual merits. Mayors of cities of at least regional prominence have usually survived AFD, although the article should say more than just "Jane Doe is the mayor of Cityville". Mayors of smaller towns, however, are generally deemed not notable just for being mayors, although they may be notable for other reasons in addition to their mayoralty." In this case, the coverage is lacking for GNG, and we can't assume that it is there. I certainly hope we haven't reached the point where we consider "chair of a sanitation district" to provide notability, and speaking as a Californian I can assure you that the Association of Independent Cities is no big deal. --MelanieN (talk) 18:42, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To the contrary, and as Bearian noted, there are sources discussing his involvement in major issues covered very substantially in independent sources. They are regional issues but they were certainly covered and the sources are independent. He seems to have led the push for noise abatement at LAX among other issues. Candleabracadabra (talk) 18:58, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What do you base that on? The sources merely say that he was involved in the talks. --MelanieN (talk) 19:38, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Local boy goes to law school becomes mayor of tiny town. Nice, but zero notability. Fails WP:GNG. No significant coverage. Only real coverage is in "Daily Breeze," a free, community newspaper. Two articles are written by the same reporter and say exactly the same thing in two different publications. Malke 2010 (talk) 20:52, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Speedy delete" is out of the question at this point as that action, barring BLP or banned user issues, is only reserved for all !votes at a certain point are for "delete" with no chance for the article being kept. Do you have any deletion argument that relates to our notability guidelines? A city of a population of about 17,000 is not a"tiny town."--Oakshade (talk) 22:03, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is - in context. There are 88 incorporated cities in Los Angeles County. The top 15 are all over 100,000. I couldn't find out exactly where El Segundo ranks in Los Angeles County, but it's not in the top 50. In the context of the region this is a very small town. --MelanieN (talk) 01:10, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone would consider the city of El Segundo a "tiny town." Sure in the context of the Los Angeles Metropolitan area it's a relatively small city as compared to other ones, but when most people think "tiny town," they think of something like Ashfield, Massachusetts or Spillville, Iowa, not the fully urbanized city, and an important one, of a major metropolitan area. A similar city in the New York area would be Englewood, New Jersey and that city wouldn't be considered a "tiny town" either. Smaller than many other New York area cities? Yes. "Tiny town"? No. --Oakshade (talk) 06:07, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - El Segundo, while relatively small, is a very important city to both the region and nation. It's the location of Los Angeles Air Force Base, the Space and Missile Systems Center, a major Northrop Grumman facility, a huge amount of support services for the adjacent Los Angeles International Airport and the headquarters of DirecTV. City regulation, tax laws, business incentives and location play a major role in the function and location of these major business and being the Mayor of this city is the center of such a government. This person also passes WP:NOTABILITY and its WP:GNG as there has been significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. [6][7] --Oakshade (talk) 22:01, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I still don't see how any of that makes Kelly McDowell notable. Given that argument, everybody in El Segundo government should have a Wiki article. I'd change my vote if you could show notability for this person other than having a law degree and being the mayor of a small SoCal city. Malke 2010 (talk) 17:14, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's just a straw man argument as nobody is claiming that "everybody in El Segundo government should have a Wiki article". The argument is that this person passes WP:NOTABILITY and its WP:GNG in addition to being the mayor of a significant important city. --Oakshade (talk) 18:07, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the mayor of a small city can be notable, in exceptional or unusual circumstances. However, McDowell doesn't appear to be that, just a regular city mayor doing what city mayors do. That's not a reflection on the quality of the job he did, just an acknowledgement there are hundreds or thousands of others across the world doing the exact same thing at any given time. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:58, 17 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Keep - Oakshade has demonstrated that McDowell satisfies GNG, and I found some more sources for some newsworthy actions as mayor (added to the article), so it is not necessary to consider POLITICIAN or the inherent notability of being a mayor. RockMagnetist (talk) 16:55, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment fails WP:GNG. No significant coverage. Malke 2010 (talk) 18:50, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Malke 2010, you already !voted above in which you said nothing about how this topic fails our guidelines as you didn't here. Merely citing a guideline/policy without rationale of why is simply WP:JUSTAPOLICY. And why did you edit my own !vote above ruining the formatting? [8] --Oakshade (talk) 19:54, 17 May 2014 (UTC):O[reply]

Oakshade, sorry didn't intentionally do that. My Mac has developed a very hyper trackpad for some reason which creates lots of weird mistakes. Malke 2010 (talk) 22:01, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How does your mousepad make you vote twice ? ... Please explain as that's rather confusing... →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 22:24, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where do you see two votes? I've made comments, but it looks like one ivote to me. Malke 2010 (talk) 22:28, 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 result was merge to Aurthohin. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:36, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aushomapto-2[edit]

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

Doesn't indicate notability. Laun chba ller 18:54, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - Non notable album. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 20:38, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Aurthohin, the band's page, where this album is covered. Gongshow talk 05:15, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes WP:GNG, [9], [10], [11]. --Zayeem ^(talk) 17:26, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 14:41, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Malke 2010 (talk) 22:20, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Redirect per Gongshow to Aurthohin Elassint ^Hi 17:58, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
merge and redirect to Aurthohin. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:19, 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 result was no consensus. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:54, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Negative and positive atheism[edit]

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

The phrases "positive atheism" and "negative atheism" have been used from time to time in various sources, but - as the article admits - to mean different things. This is not a coherent topic that exists in high-quality independent sources, but a synthetic one, composed of original research and synthesis. It starts with an assertion unsupported by its source, and an irrelevant (original) diagram, and does not improve. As this is not a real, notable, topic the article should be deleted. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 21:57, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleteas unecessary duplication: the distinction is covered in Atheism.TheLongTone (talk) 23:49, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and TheLongTone. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 03:11, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Atheism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:24, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve It's a meaningful distinction in works like those written by Flew and Martin and plenty of others. The diagnosis given in the nomination is applicable to a wide variety of philosophical topics: take something like nominalism or naturalism and you could easily say that it isn't a "coherent topic", because philosophical language is often an infuriating exercise in polysemy. The terminology and the definitions used don't matter so much as the concept and the distinctions drawn: the concept is discussed in a number of philosophically-informed works on atheism from both a theistic and atheistic perspective. The fact that the concept of negative and positive atheism is not universally adhered to is not really a problem: we should include any reliable sources that object to 'negative/positive' formulation. The idea that the article ought to not exist because it is covered in Atheism doesn't convince me much either: the fact that the distinction is discussed and disputed (for instance, by John Shook in The God Debates, and a number of other places) can easily be tucked into the article. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:15, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Tom Morris. The topic is notable, even if the usage of the terminology is ambiguous and "slippery." There is too much material present (and too much potential for expansion) for the topic to exist merely as a section of the atheism main article. Xoloz (talk) 18:20, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- But "it" is not notable because there is no source which defines what "it" is well. Which is why off-topic sources are being bent into service. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 08:09, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; I agree with Alexbrn's concerns about it being a synthetic topic, and much of the detailed content is bordering on synthesis too. If one source distinguishes between about positive/negative atheism, another source distinguishes between strong/weak atheism, and a third implicit/explicit atheism, then the best thing to do would be to handle them in the Atheism article rather than labelling them all "negative and positive atheism". bobrayner (talk) 00:00, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 14:39, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Tom Morris and (even more emphatically) per Xoloz.—S Marshall T/C 15:55, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TheLongTone and nom. Malke 2010 (talk) 20:56, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & Improve per Xoloz - Definitely something that should be kept IMO. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 21:18, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I like this sort of AFD because I can wonder whatever was going on in the nominator's mind. Anyway, the topic is notable because it is discussed in depth in multiple independent reliable secondary sources (or whatever I am supposed to say). Thincat (talk) 21:55, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is, it isn't - which is why the article is scraping around for sources and trying to make it seem like they apply ("Positive and negative atheism are distinct from the philosopher George H. Smith's less-well-known categories of implicit and explicit atheism" - unsourced). This is original research / synthesis. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 08:07, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 13:58, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AlphaPlugins Engraver II[edit]

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

Article does not establish notability per WP:NSOFT. No third-party sources are provided, nor could I find any online (DDG delivers ads, cracks and torrents, but no reviews). QVVERTYVS (hm?) 13:38, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unreferenced software article of unclear notability; a search turned up incidental mentions and one substantial review at photoshopdaily.co.uk [12], on its own not sufficient to establish notability. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 14:51, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 14:12, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unambiguously promotional. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:46, 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 result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 16:24, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jorge Marquez[edit]

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

Not notable. Few reliable sources to enhance notability. Magnolia677 (talk) 12:51, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, the article title shares the name with a soccer player. So the former red-link for the soccer player now lead here.
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 May 3. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 13:06, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is lack of available sources with which to establish even minimal notability. Fails WP:POLITICIAN.- Mr X 13:09, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable. Malke 2010 (talk) 01:39, 4 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 speedy keep (non-admin closure) This is an issue of content, not notability. The article is well sourced and shows notability. TheMesquito^buzz 02:22, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bundy standoff[edit]

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

Reason

Hopelessly slanted attack piece, redirects to the article, name the subject, so this is a thinly disguised WP:ALIVE.
Very well sourced attempts at editing for WP:BALANCE balance have resulted in either WP:OR challenges and source credibility challenges.

(We've even had Glen Beck allowed for one viewpoint and then dictated not allowed for the other.)

Primary concern What remains of good faith edits are reworded to be unfaithful paraphrases of source. There is just too much content to verify that all edits now are a fair representation of the source.
Hopelessly deadlocked strongly suspect professional COI, maybe we can try again in a year or two.

Why is this important? This is an attack the messenger piece to try to deflect from the message. The grievance in this issue is not who owns the land, it is who manages the land within the State's borders. The 11 Western State are unique at to some of the conditions that were placed upon them at statehood. Nevada has changed their Constitution and has been wating over 20 years to be heard before Congress.
The courts are are a dead issue in this matter, the Judges assume that the challenge is about the ownership of the land, the State's want more input on the management of the land.
Mr. Bundy has risked his entire livelihood on getting this before Congress and not slapped down in the lower courts. There was basically no other way to accomplish this. The media is doing a pretty good job at changing the subject to attacking the messenger, it would be nice if we could see though this and not allow the Wikipedia to become a victim of it.

009o9 (talk) 12:51, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nominator has not shown a valid reason for deletion. To the extent the issues described by the nominator are legitimate, they can be resolved through the editing and discussion process. (As an aside, the blockquote paragraphs in the nomination may run afoul of WP:SOAPBOX.) RJaguar3 | u | t 14:04, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Crappy writing is not a reason to delete an article on a notable issue. Instead, re-write/fix issues, block troublemakers if necessary. 74.207.250.159 (talk) 14:12, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, of course. The article is meticulously sourced and relevant. Cwobeel (talk) 14:34, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - Obviously-notable topic. The fact that the article is not written the way he would like it to be is not a valid reason for deletion. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:51, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Nominator's reasons are opinion based. JuanRiley (talk) 15:59, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - pretty obviously notable topic. It's not an attack piece. I would suggest to you that the facts just aren't flattering in and of themselves. Greg Bard (talk) 16:14, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per RJaguar3, 74.207.250.159, Cwobeel, NorthBySouthBaranof, JuanRiley, Gregbard. — goethean 17:03, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Looks like an interesting way to try to manipulate the debate, by deleting a well-cited article... Stan (talk) 18:28, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bingo. — goethean 18:36, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not seeing a Wikipolicy reason to delete. Malke 2010 (talk) 22:50, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is a well cited article, my problem is that I'm becoming aware of instances where the editing no longer not represents what is cited. Additionally, after what I though what concensus, the insistence of leveling the debunked racism charge in the lede prevails and been a primary concern. Sure, that is an opinion, but a reasonable person wound not allow this to persist with such high visibility.

At first I thought that this was just poor writing skills, I am convinced now that there is very subtle sabotage occurring here. My edit, attempting to add alternate perspective to this paragraph. The rewrite is unreadable and become meaningless to the reader, but meanwhile writer display enough talent to clarify and improve the writing in the alternate.

I'm coming to realize that this is becoming repetitious, a technique rather than a mistake. I don't know how compromised the article is, but I'm tempted to write an Essay concerning the technique.

"After making remarks about black people maybe being better off as slaves than under government subsidies, Bundy was repudiated by Republican politicians and talk-show hosts that had previously supported him, forcefully condemning his remarks as racist.[10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17] Ben Swann examined Bundy's comments in broader context and found that Bundy was not given a truthful representation,[18] the American Thinker revealed that Bundy was speaking to the consequences of Government welfare on black families and stated, "He is no more a racist than is E.W. Jackson, Thomas Sowell..."[19] David Brock of Media Matters for America confirmed that they themselves were the source of this news. [20]"

"After making remarks about black people maybe being better off as slaves than under government subsidies, Bundy was widely condemned in mainstream media, and was repudiated by Republican politicians and talk-show hosts that had previously supported him, many of whom forcefully condemned his remarks as racist.[10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17] Ben Swann[18] and the American Thinker stated that Bundy's comments had been taken out of context, but defended them as being truthful.[19]"

The first paragraph spends more time defending Bundy than it does discussing the allegations. When the sources clearly demonstrate that the overwhelming majority of public sentiment viewed Bundy's comments as racist and inappropriate, it is undue weight to write 37 words about the allegations and 47 words quoting two marginal sources claiming it was no big deal. The information about Brock was sourced only to a right-wing political opinion blog, which is unacceptable on Wikipedia.

It is black-letter policy that Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserves as much attention overall as the majority view. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. The view that Bundy's comments weren't racist is indisputably a small minority view and does not deserve the space or prominence accorded to the view that they were racist.

You seem to be bound and determined to use Wikipedia as an alternative media source to present your opinions that Bundy's legal theories are correct, some sort of desert tortoise conspiracy exists against him and that his views about African-Americans and slavery aren't racist. Whereas the overwhelming majority of reliable sources available discuss the fact that Bundy's legal theories have been rejected in court, there is no evidence of a desert tortoise conspiracy and that virtually everyone of any consequence has condemned his views as racist. Wikipedia must reflect the preponderance of reliable sources, no matter if you think those sources are all part of the conspiracy.

More to the point, a debate about article content belongs on the article Talk page. It's not a legitimate reason to delete the page. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:10, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The majority view is that media spin has no relevance here, this in one reason MSM's competition is doing so well. Racism requires the fundamental belief that one race is superiour -- so the racism allegations fail, this was not what was expressed. 009o9 (talk) 22:22, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is becomingWP:TEND. You need to stop the nonsense and the time wasting like this silly attempt to an AFD. Stop wasting editors' time. Cwobeel (talk) 22:28, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, I looked at one editor's user page and it is pretty clear that COI cannot be avoided. Thanks for everyone's input, maybe I'll have more luck now that I recognize the technique.009o9 (talk) 22:22, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep This is not the way to resolve editing conflicts. I am One of Many (talk) 00:02, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, I feel this nomination is politically motivated.--Loyalmoonie (talk) 00:43, 4 May 2014 (UTC)Chris[reply]
Speedy keep. None of the arguments presented in the nomination are valid for deletion; as others have said above, this is an issue of content and should be resolved by consensus on the talk page. There is no doubt at all about notability. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:49, 4 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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:51, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hearts from the Somme[edit]

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

Non-notable future film, does not meet WP:NFF BOVINEBOY2008 12:45, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete This upcoming film has generated no coverage. The author's user page tells us it is in pre-production, and paragraph 3 of WP:NFF is not met. Further, the article's author has a username issue, and his User page itself imitates an article. Userfy back to author if requested, but ONLY if his username issue is addressed and he is made aware of WP:COI. Send him to WP:PRIMER. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 15:30, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFF by a wide margin. --Finngall ^talk 16:32, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable and WP:NFF. Malke 2010 (talk) 00:09, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Zero coverage in reliable sources. Only hits I could find are to the film's website (actually a Blogspot blog) and to an independent film movie database. No prejudice against recreation if it gets reliable coverage in the future. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:17, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
'"no delete"' this film is the second to potray the battle of the Somme atone of the hardest film to make according to the director — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.255.2.118 (talk) 03:54, 10 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 Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 20:02, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yiling Senior High School[edit]

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

~~No references or sources to indicate significance. Created by a SPA. Phill24th (talk) 11:46, 3 May 2014 (UTC)~~ Withdrawal by nominator - Phill24th (talk) 19:56, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:09, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:09, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The subject is a high school, and high schools are very rarely deleted at AfD unless they are a hoax. A cursory Google search indicates that the school exists. Note that this title is the English name of the school--the Chinese name, 夷陵中学, returns more sources that verify its existence and satisfy WP:GNG. We should avoid systemic bias when dealing with these articles. High schools are a significant part of their respective communities and will usually produce the notability--regardless of where they are in the world. That's the rationale behind the common outcome. Mz7 (talk) 15:24, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 15:37, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is to delete, as per relavent policies the panda ₯’ 22:37, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Release of hostage Christina Meier[edit]

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

Declined PROD. Appears to fail WP:EVENT, as I can find very little coverage after the initial news cycle, and no reliable sources re-analysing this event later on. Moswento ^talky 07:45, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, short-lived news story with no evidence of any subsequent coverage.TheLongTone (talk) 10:34, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and this event has no long-term significance. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:19, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On German Wikipedia deletion of an article on Christina Meier also was discussed in 2007. It was then changed to a redirect to the charity de:Ora Kinderhilfe she worked for at the time. Her name does not appear in the article up to now which may be due to the restrictions on Biographies of living persons. Ms Meier was present in the German news then, but has not been featured ever since. So, I second the article please be deleted.--Aschmidt (talk) 02:18, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:06, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is important for a ongoing history of engagments / missions of Norwegian military forces. The article is linked to the Military of Norway and Norwegian specialforces articles. Wikipedia is an information platform, where people can get information and get a broader perspective and information that otherwise might not reach the general public. Mortyman (talk) 20:39, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No separate article is required for documenting the relation between Ms Meier and the Norwegian military.--Aschmidt (talk) 01:54, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ The article is not so much about Mrs Meier, but the types of missions the Norwegian military has been involved with. Furthermore, there are several pages here on Wikipedia, about hostages that has been rescued or killed in various wars ( Iraq, Afghanistan etc ). Both journalists, aidworkers , construction workers etc. This discussion of deletion is not acceptable. Mortyman (talk) 02:42, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that the article is about a hostage-related mission, rather than Mrs Meier, but the problem is that there are no reliable sources suggesting this hostage-related mission has long-term significance in the history of the Norwegian military. Other hostage situations on Wikipedia, however, have played a more significant role in a particular conflict, and have consequently been analysed and discussed long after the event. If there are exceptions, it's because no-one has noticed them to nominate them for deletion yet. Moswento ^talky 07:46, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the above mentioned deWiki AfD closed with the note that not the person but the event was notable. Which is what this article reflects. Agathoclea (talk) 19:26, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry to say that this is not the point. I already mentioned Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. There is no reason for the hostage's name to be mentioned any more in such a prominent place and way.--Aschmidt (talk) 23:52, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The only enWiki relevant Policy would be WP:BLPNAME which the article complies with (significant context). As far as the assumption that the article on deWiki does not have her name due to BLP reasons goes, it is not based on facts. The account of the kidnapping was deleted as part of a major rewite of the article under a cryptic editsummary of structure/tightening and due to the length of the diff obviously ran under the radar of those familiar with the reasons of the original placement. That said, I can see the reasoning for the incident not to be elaborated at the article of the organisation as it is not a defining moment of that organisation. Nevertheless the mentioned AFD closed with a declaration of the event being notable and newscoverage was also international. There was coverage analysing the incident and the obvious tabloid style talkshow stuff. What pinches it for me is the fact that the incident is used as a comparative reference a few years later. The talkshow link btw rules out hiding her name per WP:BLPNAME. Care has to be taken that the article does not develop into a coattrack for a bio on Ms Maier but that is a totally seperate issue. Agathoclea (talk) 08:11, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A brief mention in a list of hostages on a Catholic news website doesn't do much to highlight enduring notability. International coverage may be an indication of an event's notability, but if that coverage only appears within a brief news cycle, the event is still not notable per WP:EVENT. The Backview source is within the same news cycle, so has the same issue. Moswento ^talky 08:44, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Agathoclea, I just would like to add that this is not only about any policies, but it is about legal compliance. European and German law apply to all content that is available in this country. So if Ms Meier would like her name not to appear any more she could have it removed from any language version of Wikipedia whatsoever because time has passed and she was by far not as popular as, say, the Princess of Monaco. I can tell because I deal with such matters. The WMF has already suffered some setbacks at courts in the last years because of stubborn community positions on matters of personal data. So, it is no use to discuss this only as a matter of community rules.—I'm off for some time now, so I won't take part in the rest of the discussion.--Aschmidt (talk) 10:19, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It looks to be a notable event covered world-wide. I am One of Many (talk) 05:40, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr^\ talk / 09:56, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~I find this not acceptable. It is not acceptable that certain people wants to discuss this topic endlessly, until they get their wanted wish of deletion. The article has been discussed and as I see it there is no particulare reason to delete it. It is noteworthy and I ask that the deletion warning from the article to be removed now. Mortyman (talk) 20:11, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Re the above: this event was covered worldwide whaen it happened but has generated nolasting coverage: see WP:EVENT. As for the argument that this article should be kept becaise it is a notable incident in the history of the Norwegian armed forces, this is an argument for merging this article into the appropriate article about them.TheLongTone (talk) 16:41, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ he articles about the Military forces of Norway and specialforces of Norway has link to this article. To put several missions on one page will make the one article too big eventually. Mortyman (talk) 20:11, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:EVENT Or, if there is an article on the Norwegian Special Forces, perhaps merge it there. Malke 2010 (talk) 00:59, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the mission seems important enough.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:22, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS, WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 10:37, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the taking of Western hostages in Afghanistan is unfortunately not that unusual an event. A brief burst of coverage, and then nothing. If there were an obvious merge target, such as a list of such operations in Afghanistan, I'd not be opposed to a merge but I've not been able to find anything. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:53, 17 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete or Merge. Not notable as an event by itself, and possible WP:BLP issues. Would Forsvarets Spesialkommando be a valid merge target? -- RoySmith (talk) 13:28, 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 result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 16:27, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Halcyon (band)[edit]

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

Fails WP:BAND. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 01:43, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why has this been tagged for deletion? -John Weiss — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Weiss (talk • contribs) 04:25, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is a list of criteria at this link; a band that does not come under one or more of those criteria is likely (but not definitely) to not be notable enough for inclusion into the encyclopædia. μc8 (talk) 11:12, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and this meets at least the first criteria. -John Weiss — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Weiss (talk • contribs) 17:42, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Sputnik review is fine, but it needs at least one other in what Wikipedia calls a reliable source, by my count. 78.18.102.158 (talk) 01:15, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The review from Prog Sphere should be fine. John Weiss (talk) 05:07, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 05:26, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The Sputnik review is a good start but by itself is not enough. The prog sphere review is not a reliable source. Halcyon lacks coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 02:41, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What this article lacks is reliable sources. Progsphere is not "fine", Sputnik is not as terrible as Progsphere but is not enough in isolation, and everything else here is referenced to an invalid primary source like the band's own promotional profiles on Facebook and Bandcamp. I'm willing to reconsider this if good sources start showing up, but this version as currently written does not meet WP:NMUSIC standards and has to be deleted. Bearcat (talk) 04:22, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. To meet WP:BAND criterion #1, we need significant coverage in multiple reliable sources (not just one) that are independent of the subject. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:10, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 08:59, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hitler's Warriors[edit]

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

Comment: Subject does not meet Wikipedia:Notability. There are plenty of documentaries on the war, this one does not seem more notable than the rest. Wiki is not the IMDB. Tempaccount040812 (talk) 05:13, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This looks like it was actually a series as opposed to an individual documentary, but coverage is somewhat limited from what I can see so far. I may just recommend redirecting it to Guido Knopp. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:47, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment: Germany-made, German language documentary series about the major German generals of WWII. Will look for German-language sources and come back to this discussion. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 15:54, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Addendum: With further research, it appears that each of the stand-alone individual documentaries that comprise this series have received individual commentary and analysis upon their particular releases. To reflect the notability of the separate parts when lacking separate articles about those parts, this article should be expanded to list and describe each and include the critical response toward each. Regular editing. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:04, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I think the issue is settles now. The documentary is the only documentary featuring Manstein's and Rommel's sons. It's the last documentary featuring Johann von Kielmansegg before his death in 2006. It's very well-known and notable because of the key insight into the life and career of 6 of some of the most famous military officers in German and military history given by unseen relatives and known veterans. The article has, also, vastly improved. Jonas Vinther (talk) 21:05, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To Jonas Vinther, thank you for your appreciated efforts, but until THIS discussion is closed the AFd template must remain on the aricle. Cheers. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 07:58, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources being available and per massive improvements. Note: I have returned the removed alternative searches so others might assist in further improvements. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 07:58, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

German:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL 10-13-98

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

German:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL 10-27-98

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

German:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL 11-03-98

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

German:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL 11-10-98

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

German:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL 11-17-98

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

German:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL 11-24-98

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

Keep, given the now improved state of the article. Kierzek (talk) 21:39, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep (nomination effectively withdrawn). (Non-admin closure). Stalwart111 08:18, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How Hitler Lost the War[edit]

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

Subject does not meet Wikipedia:Notability. There are plenty of documentaries on the war, this one does not seem more notable than the rest. Wiki is not the IMDB. Tempaccount040812 (talk) 05:13, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I did some digging and found enough coverage via RS reviews to assert notability. It also looks like it's used in classrooms, or at least was, as it's recommended in a teacher's academic text. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:42, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Considering the info you dug up and how you have fleshed out the article, which makes it clear it is not just another ww2 documentary, I rescind my objection to the article and agree it meets notability.Tempaccount040812 (talk) 07:21, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. JohnCD (talk) 16:28, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Adamowicz ‎[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Adam Adamowicz

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

While it is sad that this man, a concept artist for a major games company died, enough time has now passed to allow a detached evaluation of weather this article should be on the wiki. Prior to Adamowicz' death in 2012, this diff shows how the article stood: a stub linking to a development diary and a note suggesting at the time the article perhaps did not meet the Wikipedia:Notability guidelines.

Now, the article is little more than a memorial page pulling info from tribute pages. The tribute pages, including one from the company he worked for, seem better placed than the wiki to tell people about who this artist was. While there are a few news articles, it would seem largely created around the time of his death, I do not believe the artist meets the definition of the notability guidelines. Thus, this discussion for deletion.

Regards, Tempaccount040812 (talk) 04:55, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The obituaries in the NYT and elsewhere are ample evidence of notability. Andrew (talk) 09:13, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
While I recognize that NYT is a reliable source, it does seem that most coverage about this artist is coming from obituaries. Surely more is needed to warrant an article to meet the "Significant coverage" category, not to mention the notability article cautions "if reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having a biographical article on that individual."

This returns to the point that the page, is largely a memorial page sourcing from obituaries and other memorials, rather than an article detailing why this artist is notable.Tempaccount040812 (talk) 10:11, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Obituaries are typically about a person's life, not their death. They are ideal sources for our purposes because they summarise their entire life rather than focussing upon some particular news event. Andrew (talk) 10:25, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:Notability and WP:NOT. Google search shows info is coming from obits and blogs. Malke 2010 (talk) 20:41, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Malke 2010 (talk) 05:30, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there's already two reliable sources with significant coverage. Therefore, he is notable generally. This stub needs work, but that's not a reason to delete. Bearian (talk) 17:57, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I do think the New York Times obit is a valid source. I'm impressed with the artist's work. However, I don't see significant coverage of this artist before his death and I really looked for it. I appreciate that he was very good at what he did and the fans certainly think highly of his work, but unless there's a wider notability, I can't see changing my ivote. As the nominator stated, this article is more a tribute and would be more suitable for a fan website, than a Wikipedia article. Malke 2010 (talk) 18:37, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Numerous artists were not recognised until after they died — Van Gogh, Gauguin, Toulouse-Lautrec &c. Coverage during the artist's life is therefore not required. Andrew (talk) 19:07, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is that a Wikipolicy regarding artistis? Malke 2010 (talk) 23:55, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Even if many artists are not recognized until after they have died (This borders on an OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, by the way), the question remains, has Adamowicz received any coverage outside of the single event of his death? For example, following his death, has any more coverage occurred? While obituaries may contain a lot of useful information about his life, that merely satisfies verifibility. Notability needs something more. It doesn't appear that he got coverage before or after his death, everything links to the single event. -- ferret (talk) 18:26, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO, having a Times obit is proof of notability. Bearian (talk) 21:53, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that. After re-reading the 'significant coverage' rule, that seems to apply more to a one-time event. This fellow left his mark on these games. He was well-known in his circle, which means he had high visibility there. We have articles on writers and actors most people wouldn't recognize, but they were known among fans, critics, etc. I'm changing my ivote. Malke 2010 (talk) 05:30, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep per the snowball clause. Royal broil 02:51, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Basilica of Sant'Ubaldo, Gubbio[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Basilica of Sant'Ubaldo, Gubbio

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

Fails WP:N Mercy11 (talk) 04:15, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this is a 500-year-old church that remains the centre of important annual celebrations, contains important religious relics and houses a collection of 16th, 17th and 18th century religious art from notable artists. The fact that nobody bothered to create an article for it until yesterday does not make the subject non-notable. Stalwart111 04:42, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Stalwart111. A basilica, as I understand it, is a church which has received a special designation of significance as a site of pilgrimage by a Pope. This one is 500 years old and is connected to a notable religious festival. In a few minutes, I was able to find many mentions in travel guidebooks, plus a mention in National Geographic. I am confident that an editor who reads Italian could find much more coverage, and that the encyclopedia is better off with this article than without it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:08, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if nothing else, there should be Church records somewhere related to the church's elevation to the "rank" of basilica by whichever pope issued that decree. My experience is that such basilicas have generally been considered notable by default and a 500-year-old one, probably more so. But it was a new article with no real independent references so there's nothing wrong with having a discussion about it. Stalwart111 10:58, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:37, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:38, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:38, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - As per above - The article needs improving, Not deleting, If I'm honest I'm slightly baffled as to how anyone could think a 500yo church isn't notable but there you go.... -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 15:41, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
clear Keep. As I understand it basilica refers to a church of a particular type of floor plan, but nevertheless this building is clearly notable, despite not being a retired ice-hockey player.TheLongTone (talk) 15:48, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - for the reasons given above. ("Basilica" refers to both a floor plan and a status: the status is significant enough to = notability). Bizarre and troutworthy nomination. Eustachiusz (talk) 19:29, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, an assumption on my part because of the "pilgrimage" nature of the church's location and the seeming lack of basilical form in the architecture itself. It may well be referred to as a "basilica" for its design rather than its status but I'm not sure that really matters in this instance. Stalwart111 02:21, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable. Malke 2010 (talk) 00:19, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Truly historic church, official basilica, and tourist attraction. An incomprehensible nomination. -- 101.117.1.194 (talk) 01:04, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Is it snowing on top of Mount Ingino yet? -- 101.117.1.194 (talk) 01:06, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. --do ncr am 01:11, 4 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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:15, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Asha Zero[edit]

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

Article is about a pseudonymous South African visual artist. The article was a recreation of a (speedy?)deleted version and (single issue) author subsequently took it upon themselves to remove a PROD template. Article is sourced to a blog and several gallery catalogues, none of which I would describe as reliable journalistic coverage. The only thing I can find that isn't a press release or Asha taliing about himself, is evidence of a profile in Issue 4 of Kolaj Magazine. Not sufficient to meet WP:GNG or WP:ARTIST notability criteria. Sionk (talk) 19:54, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I adhere to the arguments above. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 17:57, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:41, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:TOOSOON. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:41, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A RS has been added during the nomination.--Ymblanter (talk) 04:14, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisting comment: Relisting per the comment from User:Ymblanter above. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:34, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:33, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I added a reference to the article 10 days ago but was too undecided to put a view on this Afd. As well as that reference, there are some other mentions in the Cape Times, including one where I can see Asha Zero being used as a comparative for someone else. However, on thinking/looking again, I don't think there is enough independent sourcing out there to establish WP:ARTIST notability. AllyD (talk) 05:22, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:52, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rati Tsiteladze[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The page was deleted not so long ago after AfD but the subsequent speedy deletion of the repost was declined because references were added. I think the issues brought up in the original AfD with respect to notability and quality of references are still valid. I will say that the new poster has made significant effort to improve their original prose and also there is quite a bit of discussion/question about notability on the Talk page. Peter Rehse (talk) 09:42, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 09:42, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have read and understood that as an Entertainer the subject of my article meets the criteria of the Guidelines. In guidelines it is written that the Entertainers - Actors, voice actors, comedians, opinion makers, models, and celebrities: are notable if they •Has had a significant role in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. •Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following. •Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.

Which means that the participant of ‘’Dancing with the Stars’’ can be considered as notable because it is a television show and performance was taking place on the stage of Tbilisi Philharmonia Concert Hall. The subject of my article have also had a leading role in film “Dark Side’’ produced and directed by him and has been a subject of two major TV Channels in Georgia which are Imedi TV and Rustavi 2. He became notable in Georgia because of his sport achievements and his role in the film, therefore he was invited in ‘’Dancing with the Stars’’ as a star – as a notable/famous person in Georgia. Usually they only invite notable people in such kind of TV shows: The stars are being chosen and it is by invitation not a casting: (I have provided with the episodes of Dancing with The Stars in reference list) He also has a large fan base or a significant "cult” I mean Official Facebook Fun Page. I still don't understand why do you take it to AfD. After original AfD there was a big change in references which are articles published in official inter media and are far from blogs. I've seen many articles with only two references but even those articles are not Afd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sofiamar (talk • contribs) 10:14, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that it's not your article. Nevertheless, I'm inclined to say Keep this one. He's obviously not going to have a lot of English-language coverage, but I think the multiple international sports championships along with the film and television career push him over the line into notability. GoldenRing (talk) 11:25, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I found the comments on the first AfD quite instructive.Peter Rehse (talk) 12:10, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

{GoldenRing} Please be informed that your note has been taken and your comment about the English-language can only motivate me and push me for improvement for which I have to thank you. With regards to instructive comments on the first AFD allow me to discuss, go through the comments step by step and provide with the qualitative information. User WikiDan61 was saying that Non-notable athlete, actor and model. Claims of notability as an athlete (kickboxing world championship in Egypt, 2008 and Karate European Champion in Lithuania, 2009) cannot be verified as no indication is given as to what sanctioning bodies awarded such titles (nor can any indication be found that such championships were held by any of the major sanctioning bodies). It should be noted that the subject's photograph shows him wearing a championship belt inscribed with the date November 2007, but the rest of the belt cannot be read to ascertain what championship it was.

I understand his point because that time there was no qualitative references and details provided and the belt which WikiDan61 was talking about was the belt of the national league of Georgian martial arts GEO-FIGHT ( Rati was the captain of Geo-Fight Team) Awarded by the most prestigious international federation “World gold belt” This time I have provided with the verification and information which was not provided before. Please find below Information About world championship: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3ARati_Tsiteladze_with_World_Champion's_belt_and_other_awards_obtained_in_2008.gif http://www.muaythaitv.com/events/wasko-world-kickboxing-championship-e495.html http://forums.sherdog.com/forums/f42/wasko-world-championships-749763/ Also you can find WASKO ON “Liste d'organisations de kick boxing” European Championship

Below you can find the information of federation/when and where the championship was held and the pictures/evidence of winning (Due to his success he was even accompanied by the Chairman of the Department of sport and youth affairs of Georgia)

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Rati_Tsiteladze_and_Chairman_of_the_Department-of-sport_Irakli_Dolaberidze.jpg ; https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:First_Place_European_Champion_Rati_Tsiteladze.JPG ; https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Winners-of-European-championshp-in-Kyokushin-2009.jpg ; https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:European_Kyokushin-Shinkyokushin_karate_championship_-_Lithuania_-_2009.jpg ; http://www.kyokarate.hu/keres1_en.html?id=1150 ; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyokushin .

Admission of Rati Tsiteladze on international Tournaments http://www.geotimes.ge/index.php?newsid=15119&lang=eng ; http://www.adjaratv.ge/ge/index.php?page=shownews&id=9142 ; http://www.georgianews.ge/sports/2534-i-owe-my-success-to-my-failure.html ; http://www.geotimes.ge/index.php?m=home&newsid=12354 ;

Wikidan61 also said that as for the subject's acting and modeling career, it is limited to an appearance… Well if it was limited in his opinion I can provide you with the evidence of two Major Modeling agencies in Dubai http://divadubai.com/search_detail.php?mod_id=13170&search_for=models&category=1&session_value=13170&session_index=0 http://www.emodels.me/search.php?search=Rati+Tsi+-+13006&match_type=all

Which was also not provided before as evidence and maybe you can have your own sense of judgment this time. In addition please note that Rati has IMDB credits which were not provided before as well. I hope you have an idea of what IMDB is for filmmaking industry.

The last comment of Wikidan61 was (win? loss? kicked out before he started? on the Georgian version of Dancing with the Stars, and a non-specific modeling career in Dubai.

Obviously it was not mentioned in previous article that the show premiered on October 8, 2012 and after 10 weeks Rati finished in 5th place and I have provided with the details and the episodes in reference list.With regards to none specific modeling career in Dubai I already provided the evidence and his Facebook Fun page https://www.facebook.com/RatiTsiteladze Has 191,000 fans which is statistically on the first place (in sport category) in Georgia followed by the Georgian National Rugby Team with 119,000 fans only https://www.facebook.com/OfficialGeorgiaRugby

Which speaks a lot about notability - Please note that the fun page of Rati Tsiteladze is just about one person while the other page is about Georgian National Rugby Team – even though rugby is considered as the first sport in Georgia.

I hope you understand that there have been many improvements in tone, details, references and evidence after the first Afd and will decide to keep this one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sofiamar (talk • contribs) 00:07, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete He's not notable as a kickboxer--amateur kickboxing is specifically identified as not showing notability and WASKO is amateur. He's won no notable titles. Facebook followers are not a sign of notability. My search found lots of videos, but a lack of significant independent coverage.Mdtemp (talk) 18:30, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment On the belt it is clearly written World All Styles Kickboxing Organization not World Amateur Kickboxing Sport Organization. You can see on the link that I have provided that in that year there was an Amateur and Professional championships held at the same time and he won WK1(Professional) And if the Facebook Followers are not sign of notability could you please be kind and tell me what below sentence mean?

•Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following. (Mentioned In entertainers Notability)

The bottom line is that he doesn't meet the kickboxing notability criteria at WP:KICK and Facebook can't be considered a reliable source for anything.Mdtemp (talk) 15:27, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:12, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:KICK and appearing on the Georgian version of Dancing with the Stars is not enough to show notability (I know the U.S. version has a generous definition of "star").204.126.132.231 (talk) 15:44, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't fail anything and by the way Georgia is also a country on this universe and saying that Georgian version doesn't have a generous definition of Star but U.S does is just highlighting your racism... I don't see anything like that written anywhere in Wikipedia policy or guidelines. And also logging in with different user names or IP address in order to place your opinion hundred times here, doesn't meet wikipedia policies and guidlines. --Sofiamar (talk) 20:29, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that English is not your first language and the use of the word "generous" above is a little subtle but basically it means that in the US show they use the word "star" too easily. He believes the Georgian version of the show is probably no better. Don't play the racism card - no one has any time for that.Peter Rehse (talk) 20:51, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for misunderstanding. In Georgia it is very important TV Show because if in U.S there are hundreds of TV Shows and series in Georgia is only few of them and Whole country is watching. They cannot really have a generous definition of "star" Because people know who is notable and who is not. I am not an expert in sport but I found evidence of his fighting in kickboxing (You can check) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:FIGHTING_ROOKIES_-_K-1_-_2010.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Professional_K-1_Championship_-_Copy.jpg ; https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Favorite_stunt_of_World_%26_European_Champion.gif ; https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Another_Victory_of_World_Champion.gif ; However it is not just about kickboxing but many other styles of martial arts: http://www.geotimes.ge/index.php?newsid=15119&lang=eng , and it is about the person who has many achievements in Sport, TV and Film industry https://www.mashpedia.com/Rati_Tsiteladze .

The criteria for being a notable kickboxer can be found at WP:KICK. He doesn't seem to meet any of them. Sofiamar, you should be aware that you are violating WP:CIVIL when you call other editors racist and sockpuppets. Papaursa (talk) 01:15, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He doesn't appear to be a notable kickboxer since he doesn't meet any of the criteria at WP:KICK. Besides kickboxing the article claims he has won multiple international championships in full contact karate (besides Kyokushin), Shorin-ryu Shidokan, neko ryu, Goju-Ryu, and sanda. If reliable independent sources for all of these championships can be found I'd say he likely passes WP:MANOTE, but the claims are not referenced. I would even say an argument could be made for keeping the article if reliable sources could be found for him being a 4 time European champion in Kyokushin. The only source for those is an invitation to the under 22 championship and that doesn't show he won (plus junior events are not generally considered sufficient to show notability). As far as being a notable entertainer goes, that's not really my area of expertise, but I'd say appearing on Dancing with the Stars doesn't show notability just like being an MMA fighter on The Ultimate Fighter fails to grant notability. I also have no idea what constitutes notability for a model. I'm not voting, at least not yet, because I want the author to have a chance to document those international championships in a wide variety of styles and because I am not sure about notability as a model. Papaursa (talk) 01:15, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:26, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article has been edited and cleaned up by the professional editor. Article has been linked to other pages so it is no longer an orphan. Tone, wording and English Language coverage has been improved. More reliable sources has been added.--Sofiamar (talk) 20:37, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment His name in Georgian is "რატი წითელაძე". --Moscow Connection (talk) 21:20, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't see independent sources about the multiple international championships in most of those disciplines. I also must admit the Georgian TV clips are useless to me. I take it the "universal fighter" award is given to the person deemed the best all-around fighter in Georgia, though it's never explained. Papaursa (talk) 22:01, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I have removed unsourced claims and sourced some specific claims in the article. I'm still not convinced he meets WP:MANOTE and I found the Georgian Times interview with his coach, Kakhaber Markozashvili, to be poor journalism since he identified as a martial arts expert without identifying him as his coach. However, I do think a reasonable case can be made for him meeting WP:GNG and while I think a reasonable case can be made for deletion, I also think a reasonable case can be made for keeping the article so I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt. Papaursa (talk) 00:52, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Multiple international sports championships coupled with his film and television career make him notable, as GoldenRing pointed out. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 19:17, 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 result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:28, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rex Nutting[edit]

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

Article is not really about the subject, and sources about the subject are not evident. Non-notable columnist, one article he wrote received note, but that's it. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:04, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - This guy appears to be mentioned in several moderate RS. Article has substantial problems though. NickCT (talk) 17:57, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge: His 2012 forecast seems notable even if the author isn't himself. Maybe the article could be renamed after the incident, or merged into a current article on presidential spending? Jonpatterns (talk) 12:30, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:23, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Found many news sites where the subject is regularly called upon and quoted about the economy. Triple citations in a row in the article are not necessary and need to be cleaned up. While the article needs work (i went in, did some housekeeping by copyediting and expanding it some but needs more cleanup), he appears to pass WP:GNG based on multiple sources about him (that are not only about the controversy). I will add them to the article. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 07:47, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:20, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The notability of a working journalist, like the notability of an academic, is determined by how often their work is cited and discussed by others. Let's face it, biographical profiles of journalists and professors aren't all that common, except when it comes to a relative handful of "big stars". But Nutting's articles have been widely cited, discussed and debated, including in books about the 2012 presidential election. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:42, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The policy arguments clearly show that this is not independantly notable. It may be possible to merge some info into the city article, but overall the consensus is delete the panda ₯’ 22:39, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sumter Mall[edit]

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

non-notable shopping mall. No indication of notability. It is not clear however whether malls qualify for speedy DGG ( talk ) 00:54, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The only news sources I could find were from The Item, a local newspaper covering a few counties. No regional or national coverage. Moswento ^talky 08:37, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:13, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:13, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per WP:OUTCOMES, this is a Regional Shopping Center per the definition here. Malls are inherently notable. Me5000 (talk) 23:38, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Malls are not inherently notable. WP:OUTCOMES says: "Larger malls are generally considered notable. Very small malls, strip malls, and individual shops are generally deleted unless significant sourcing can be found." From their website, they seem to have 45 shops, which may not be "very small", but it's equally not large enough to establish notability on its own. Where is the "significant sourcing"? Moswento ^talky 12:37, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nomination provides no evidence that the topic is not notable. Show your work. Unscintillating (talk) 03:59, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The research done by the delete !votes doesn't report that this mall was previously known as the Jessamine Mall. Unscintillating (talk) 03:59, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a regional shopping center as per [13], and a regional mall as per [14]. As per WP:OUTCOMES, larger malls such as this one are generally considered notable. The city shows this to be the most important shopping feature in the city, as per [15]. Other links: [16] , [17] , [18], [19] (not entirely a WP:RS), [20] , [21] , [22] , [23]. Unscintillating (talk) 03:59, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Being the most important shopping feature in a city is not a mark of independent notability. The only independent in-depth coverage you point to is in the Sumter Daily Item, which is a local paper covering a few counties. There is no evidence of significant coverage in regional or national publications. Also, this is a pretty average size mall, so I don't think we can assume notability on basis of its size. Moswento ^talky 16:18, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:20, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. Mall of America, South Coast Plaza, Fashion Island are notable. But a regional mall, with it's only coverage from a local paper, and not tied to any major development company, sadly, is not. Malke 2010 (talk) 02:39, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The first two !votes to delete didn't notice that this mall has a long history with another name. Show your work. Unscintillating (talk) 03:22, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the significant independent reliable source coverage under another name? Moswento ^talky 07:55, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where do you think you are having trouble? Unscintillating (talk) 23:13, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Several sources: [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] Me5000 (talk) 15:23, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Sumter, South Carolina. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:49, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect per NorthAmerica. Mall-cruft. I checked out the sources cited by various people above. Sorry, but a dozen perfunctory articles in a local newspaper doesn't add up to being notable. Show me some sources in national mainstream media. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:51, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Consensus is that malls do not need national coverage to be notable per these discussions: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Southgate Mall (Missoula) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Middlesboro Mall (Middlesboro, Kentucky) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Mall at Westlake Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Columbia Mall (Missouri) Almost no malls have national coverage. The sources I provided are not "perfunctory"(did you look at all of the source I provided or just a few?) and easily satisfy WP:GNG. Additionaly, consensus is that enclosed shopping malls and Regional Shopping Centers (this mall is both) are inherently notable. Me5000 (talk) 14:32, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus can change. If you tell me that most malls do not have national coverage, then my response is that most malls are not notable. It's a building. With a parking lot. It's got a couple of department store anchors, and a food court, and a shoe store, and a couple of clothing stores, and a bank, and book store, and it's just like any other of a zillion malls around the world. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:31, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"A zillion" sounds like a number made up out of thin air, but one of the key words in WP:N is "evidence". What evidence do you have to support your position? Do you object to the icsc.org or allbusiness.com definitions? Do you have another metric to define "larger"? Unscintillating (talk) 19:23, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will stipulate to your assertion that I did not do an accurate count. It might have been a jillion. Mostly what I object to is that there is no non-local coverage. I see a lot of articles in a local newspaper (The Sumpter, SC Daily Item). They do not impress me as meeting WP:N. I would be much more impressed if you could provide me with a couple of articles in national newspapers or similar sources. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:58, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The keep !votes, to my knowledge, didn't task themselves with looking for non-local sources. If you want to and can provide evidence that there are no non-local sources, you also need to show how that is a policy/guideline/essay based argument. A point that you've not explored other than by saying that consensus can change, is why does WP:OUTCOMES indicate that "larger" malls are generally kept? Unscintillating (talk) 22:11, 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 result was delete, no prejudice against recreation if reliable sources have been found.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:48, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Coupe[edit]

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

While there are some of this author's books have been collected ([34]), I don't see any evidence that he or his works have received in-depth attention by reliable sources. Additional sources welcomed, as always. j⚛e decker ^talk 02:54, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:02, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:02, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:02, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not seeing any reliable sources that show his notability as an author. Malke 2010 (talk) 23:12, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article has been marked as a BLP unsourced article longer than any other existing article. Since obviously no one has ever been able to find good sources on this guy, the article's time is up. Mr. Guye (talk) 21:09, 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 result was no consensus. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:40, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of large aircraft[edit]

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

This list is just an WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection with no objective criteria for inclusion. There is already an article on Large aircraft, and any relevant information has already been copied across there. This page should be either deleted or replaced with a redirect. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:26, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[Update] To help dispel a common misconception in some comments below, there are already Lists of largest aicraft (as opposed to "large") in the article on large aircraft. Even taken together, these lists are quite short. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:39, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[Update] A preliminary discussion of this and related issues may be found here. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:43, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (Nominator's vote). Since the FAA definition of a "large aircraft" has been unearthed, this list is no longer indiscriminate and I regard my original grounds for nominating it here as no longer valid. It may need editing to conform to the FAA criteria (and any others which may exist). — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:00, 27 April 2014 (UTC) - see cmt following relisting. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:31, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, man is always trying to make larger aircraft to transport people or goods, so it's not WP:INDISCRIMINATE.--Theamazo (talk) 18:23, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So, what are the objective criteria for inclusion that make this list stand alone from the article on large aircraft? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:45, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The criteria for inclusion can be whatever the industry and media decide.--Theamazo (talk) 18:54, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's a WP:VAGUEWAVE if I ever saw one. There is no declared criteria by that standard. And what was large in 1914 is wildly different than what's large in 2014. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:51, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not only is this a subjective, indiscriminate list as the OP observes, but the small amount of information it does provide is already available, with context, in large aircraft. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:51, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete very subjective list Secret ^account 00:14, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - "large" is so indiscriminate it's pointless in this context. "Large" by what standard? Simply larger than the last generation? The 777 was "large" when it was introduced, not so much any more when compared to the A380. But it's still larger than a Cessna and a Dash-8. In turn, the Dash-8 is also "large" when compared to a Cessna, but "small" next to a C17 Globemaster. That said, the Dash-8 would be "too large" to land at most small regional airstrips. Why wouldn't it be considered "large" for the purposes of this list? You see where I'm going, right? Stalwart111 06:33, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I clarified what large aircraft means in the article. The Federal Aviation Administration defines a large aircraft as any aircraft of more than 12,500 pounds as its maximum certificated takeoff weight. [35] Dream Focus 04:47, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If we have an article on large aircraft which nobody above objects to, surely that means "large aircraft" is a valid topic? --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:36, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Large aircraft are a valid topic, listing them need not be. The Large aircraft article already includes lists by type of largest aircraft. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:58, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; unmanageable list with unclear scope. I'm sure there are editors who like to edit it, but I see little benefit for readers, when we have good quality sourced prose and a list over at Large aircraft. bobrayner (talk) 18:43, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It seems like this list could be salvaged by a rename to "List of largest aircraft" and setting minimum criteria for inclusion (a cursory glace would suggest a minimum max takeoff weight, but I don't know enough about the subject to suggest where that cutoff point would be). --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 22:08, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That list is already included in the Large aircraft article, as it is too short to warrant a standalone page. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:12, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Far too vague, with no inclusion criteria. - Ahunt (talk) 19:14, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article large aircraft was created recently and the nomination tells us that material from this article was copied into that one. What has been done is therefore a cut-and-paste move as a content fork and so deletion would therefore be quite improper. The page which is proposed for deletion is the older of the two, having been created eight years ago, and so its long edit history must be kept for attribution of the numerous contributors. Furthermore, institutions such as the FAA have precise definitions of large aircraft (> 12,500 pounds) and these definitions are used in important regulations. For example, co-pilots are required on aircraft of this size. The claims above that the topic is too vague to be capable of definition are therefore quite false. Andrew (talk) 21:07, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The FAA and ICAO definitions of large aircraft has no bearing on the supposed subject of this article, as this article is only dealing with "very large aircraft" and not complying with that definition. The two are essentially different subjects, which is even more reason to delete this article. Also the argument that because another article uses content from this one and therefore this one cannot be deleted is spurious. It merely has to be attributed. - Ahunt (talk) 21:26, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - You complain above that the page has no inclusion criteria. Now you're claiming that it has some criterion which differs from the FAA definition. You can't have it both ways. The page and its fork are named large aircraft and so the official definitions of a large aircraft would be helpful in sharpening up the scope of the topic. Note that, if we should want to focus upon especially large aircraft, that there are further classifications of heavy (>300,000 pounds) and super which are used in the regulation of wake turbulence. So, there's ample possibility of refining the scope along such lines. Such improvement would be best done by ordinary editing so that attribution is maintained in the customary way - by maintaining the edit history. As the nominator clearly wants to write about large aircraft and his fork includes lists of large aircraft, copied from this one, there seems to be no practical point in this nomination. The obvious alternative to deletion would be merger of the pages. Andrew (talk) 22:18, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Even attribution is probably not required. We try and maintain attribution per out license, that attribution is only required if there is some copyrightable material covered under out license. Bare lists of fact without creative content aren't copyrightable, so no such attribution is required (It'd be pretty indistinguishable as if two independent people had compiled the lists rather than copy). e.g. see Feist v. Rural --86.2.216.5 (talk) 09:50, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - WP:MAD explains the matter well. Attribution is explicitly required by our licence. As redirection is a cheap way of maintaining the edit history, the onus is on those calling for deletion to explain why the obfuscation of the history is needed. Andrew (talk) 08:23, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - The relevant guideline is WP:Copying within Wikipedia#Where attribution is not needed. The lists' selection criteria – largest aircraft by type – is factual. Comparing the tables in Large aircraft#Lists of largest aircraft at initial expansion to List of large aircraft at that time, I found one copied sentence about the Ekranoplan KM. Flatscan (talk) 04:53, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Whenever these things came out, there would be media coverage of them being the largest aircraft of their type. Books talking about the history of aircraft, would list them. Too much information to be merged to the other article. The fact that someone copied some of the information from here to another article, is irrelevant. A more complete list is here. Searching for the first aircraft on the list in Google newspaper, and the phrase "largest aircraft" I find results straight away. [36] Dream Focus 22:40, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I see it, DF, that's part of the problem. This is a list of large aircraft, not largest aircraft and that's an important distinction. "Largest" would be much easier to work with - an aircraft is either the largest of its era, or class, or type or capacity or purpose, or it's not. As long as we explain why it is "the largest" in whatever context, that would be okay. But that's not what this list is - it's a list of "large" aircraft with no proper definition of what that means. Stalwart111 23:36, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So just rename it. Obviously its a list of the largest of each type or era. Never delete an article that just needs a rename and some work on it. Dream Focus 23:53, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it would be a matter of renaming it and reworking the content to suit the new title with sourced explanations for each category and the like. But I would not have strong objections to a result like that. I think its interesting and while that's not a particular good reason to keep something, it is a good reason to put some effort into trying where possible. There are plenty of "List of the largest/longest/highest..." articles. Stalwart111 01:46, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No meaningful inclusion criteria, as any Wikipedia list is required to have. Many of the aircraft included are described as 'largest' without defining the term (weight, wingspan, wing area, or what?), and the article cites almost no sources. Furthermore, as is noted on the talk page, some of the information (e.g. Tupolev Tu-160) seems to be just plain wrong. If someone wants to keep a copy of this in their sandbox I can't see any objection, but it doesn't belong in article space - it simply lacks meaningful encyclopaedic utility. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:44, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Tu-160 obviously belongs on the list as it is easy to find a source confirming that it is "the largest and heaviest bomber ever built". If it has rivals to the claim then that's fine because the list can cover all large aircraft, not just the largest. Note that list of aircraft is a blue link and so it is quite reasonable and encyclopedic to have subsets based upon size, weight, class, etc. - see ((lists of aircraft)). Any decent encyclopedia of aircraft should contain such material because readers will obviously be interested in the big aircraft, just as they want to know about long rivers, large cities, high mountains, fast cars, &c. Andrew (talk) 23:12, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Further to my comment above. We have articles about the longest rivers, largest cities, highest mountains. Not simply List of long rivers or List of large cities (which redirects to World's largest cities). I think it would be a different story if we were talking about a list with a plainer and more consistent title like List of the largest aircraft. Stalwart111 23:36, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Additional boxes on the chart can be added listing the weight and size of aircraft, like they have at Wide-body_aircraft#Specifications_of_wide-body_aircraft. Wouldn't be hard to just copy that information over from their main articles. Dream Focus 00:00, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and fix. A list of the largest and heaviest aircraft is clearly a valid topic. I don't see why any problems with the list can't be fixed. AfD isn't cleanup. Deletion won't work because the page history is needed to maintain attribution for the other article. There would have to be a history merge at least. It may be the page should be renamed. James500 (talk) 02:56, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At risk of repetition, there are already Lists of largest aircraft in the article on large aircraft. Even taken together, these lists are quite short. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:39, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You took information from this page and created a separate article over there. [37] On 17 November 2006 it was created as a redirect to this article, and then on 22 March 2014 you changed it to have information from this article over there. There is enough valid information to fill an entire article. Dream Focus 10:12, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. Half-baked research, donch'a love it. Another editor started a discussion on the Aviation WikiProject talk page here. Arising from that I drafted a whole lot of new content and only later copied into the draft a smaller amount of what I saw as relevant list material. Then I asked the WikiProject for comment before copying the whole draft over the (then) redirect at Large aircraft. Nobody at the time suggested that refactoring the list page as not-a-list and then moving over the redirect would be a suitable approach. Had you researched the history a tad more thoroughly, you would have been aware of all this and might not have formed the mistaken views you express. Still, it is kind of you to judge my new and original content as "enough valid information to fill an entire article." — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:43, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion at WikiProject_Aviation already indicated that there was no consensus for deletion. Starting another discussion here seems to be forum-shopping. Andrew (talk) 08:14, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No and no again. It's more than just a couple of bolded keep' votes, you know. I count only four keep votes out of ten. That was an informal discussion with a narrow audience, and in it submission to AfD was expressly suggested as the next step. I obliged, deliberately opening the present discussion to the likes of your good self. You lob forum-shopping at me, may I return the volley with WP:NPA and let us henceforth focus on the matter in hand. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk)

Keep This page is similiar to the pages that detail/list the largest ships and the various speed records.174.22.11.49 (talk) 10:45, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite to match the format and standards used for the various ships lists that list the longest ships and yachts. Another option is to transfer all the information to the Large aircraft page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.22.8.68 (talk) 22:53, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No. As explained many times, this is "large" not "largest" and is more comparable to a list of "large ships" or of "fast vehicles". — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:29, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As explained many times, we can just rename it to say "largest" instead of "large", since it does list the largest aircraft of each type. It doesn't matter what you call it though. The introduction now reads, as it did when the article was first created, "This is a list of notably large aircraft." We have plenty of articles like this: List of large sailing vessels, List of large sailing yachts, List of large volcanic eruptions, List of large optical telescopes, List of large Hindu temples, etc. Dream Focus 12:44, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We can do, but that is not what this editor voted for: voting to keep the present title and to move the page to a new title are different things, see WP:AFDFORMAT, however much you personally think it does not matter which. I can only go on what people say, not on what you imagine them to be trying to say. Your claim it lists the largest of each type is also false, it omits several which are in the lists of largest aircraft and at the same time includes others with no pretensions to largest. Those other articles you note have well-defined inclusion criteria, while the discussion I refer to above led to several expressions of the impracticality of such criteria for this list - your examples thus neatly highlight the main rationale for my submitting it to AfD. What we need to decide here is whether that rationale is justified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steelpillow (talk • contribs) 13:24, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As others have already stated, the inclusion criteria for "large" aircraft is so vague that it borders on useless for an encyclopedic source of information. While the actual article on Large aircraft may be a considerably more recent creation, it is better sourced, and includes a much more feasible list of largest aircraft. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 16:41, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Update Improvement of the page in question has started. Sources which focus specifically upon large aircraft have been added, including:

Kaplan, Philip (2005), Big Wings, Pen & Sword Aviation, ISBN 978-1844151783
Ruffin, Steven (2005), "Goliaths of the Air", Aviation's Most Wanted, Potomac, pp. 62–67, ISBN 978-1574886740

These sources demonstrate that the topic passes WP:LISTN. Andrew (talk) 08:06, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The criteria of "large" is defined in the lead section, and editors decide what is notable. There is no policy or even guideline to deny editors who want to work on this article. -- GreenC 15:36, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So, I am free to add the de Havilland Heron and Beechcraft King Air 350 to the list as notably small large aircraft am I? The Armstrong Whitworth AW.660 Argosy must be included, it is the largest British-built twin-boom four-turboprop-engine aircraft. I have a contemporary source stating that a Douglas DC-2 is a "giant" aircraft, better put that in the list too. Or, delete due to it having no proper inclusion criteria. YSSYguy (talk) 14:03, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Largest aircraft is notable and is of high interest. Also, because the nominator changed decision to keep. Article could possibly need a name change. - Sidelight12 ^Talk 11:58, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ITSNOTABLE, WP:ITSINTERESTING. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:01, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Of course the fact that it is interesting enough that List_of_large_aircraft has been viewed 48,845 times in the last 30 days, isn't relevant. But if they say it "is notable", instead of writing out "is notable because it meets the relevant guideline" or "I agree with what others have said concerning the notability of this article", I don't see a problem there. Dream Focus 04:43, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Big Wings:The largest Aeroplane Ever Built a book about many of the largest aircraft. Forbes - The World's Biggest Planes, Forbes - In pictures. - Sidelight 12 ^Talk 07:45, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:34, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment: Since the majority of the !votes came in before the definition of a "large aircraft" was added, I am relisting it to allow for further discussion. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:35, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ... To be honest this article seems to be a duplicate of Large aircraft, The list at LA goes in to far better detail and also has IMO a better list. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 15:49, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This article is much older, that other one rather new. This article has far more aircraft listed. Merging information from one to the other can be done though. If most of the article is a list, then "list of" should be in its name. Dream Focus 16:53, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Large aircraft#List of largest aircraft - most votes to keep are based around largest aircraft, so let's do that, then. Re. the newer article on large aircraft, that was created with shedloads of new material because it is not just a list, and this one was (and still is) so pathetically flawed it was and is beyond redemption. [FWIW I reckon relisting gets me out of my original reason for AfD-ing it, so I am entitled to change my vote on that basis]. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:31, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We need a list of all the most notable large aircraft, not just the largest. If all the information from this article was merged over, it'd be declared too large of an article, and split off as a valid content fork. Dream Focus 00:57, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why do we need that list? p b p 20:14, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Definitely keep the older of the two articles, and seems split is warranted, so simply Keep. --do ncr am 01:16, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete How can this article be focussed when the very definition of large aircraft changes with time. The German Riesenflugzeuge were VERY LARGE aircraft of their day but struggle to be included in the FAA definition!!!! The criteria would have to be so fluid as to make a nonsense of the list.--Petebutt (talk) 23:35, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Our article tells us that the Riesenflugzeuge had a gross weight of about 26,000 lb — more than double the FAA criterion. The example you provide therefore shows that this is not, in fact, a problem. That model is a good historical example of a large aircraft and so we will be providing excellent information to aviation enthusiasts and other readers by listing it as such. Andrew (talk) 08:43, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Riesenflugzeuge came and went long before the FAA cooked up their FAR definition for the purpose of regulating aircraft leasing. We have here two quite distinct uses of the phrase "large aircraft" and we should not muddle the two. (I can see no purpose in an article on either of them) — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:17, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As I've said elsewhere and policy says as well, clear criteria is need for lists. This list doesn't have clear criteria p b p 20:13, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, with consideration toward a potential merge to Large aircraft – Lists of largest aircraft. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:53, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You want to merge this much older article to that relatively new one? How so? Copy everything over to make that article's list section larger than the entire article? Or just replace this article with a redirect and nothing merged? Dream Focus 05:26, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - thanks to Dream we now have the option of clear quantitative criteria. While a possible merge is worth consideration, on balance it seems preferable to keep this as a separate article, as otherwise useful encyclopedia material could be lost. FeydHuxtable (talk) 09:30, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What "clear qualitative criteria" are those? A definition cooked up by the American aircraft leasing insurance business and wholly inapplicable elsewhere? Arbitrary sources using the adjective "large" without regard to context? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:54, 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 result was keep. I'm withdrawing this; the referencing requirements really would be better discussed elsewhere DGG ( talk ) 04:21, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Human trafficking in Egypt[edit]

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

Most of this articles is a POV essay, and that part that gives specific facts is not specifically referenced--and out of date. That's not surprising, since the article is simply a copy of the relevant section of a 2011 US government report, It's not copyvio, since it's PD, but its an inappropriate use of an external source--a source that was not written as a NPOV encyclopedia article. (It's a reasonable source to use in an article, especially to use for a quote for some of the conclusions).

Another course which I seriously considered, is replacing the entire text with a link to the article, except there seems to way to link to the relevant section.

Our template in such cases is inadequate and insufficient, as does not meet out current policy on plagiarism. .t says says only " This article incorporates text from this source, which is in the public domain." without saying what part is copied from the source. Current practice is that portions copied from even as PD source must be indicated. (A template saying the entire thing is copied wouldn't do either, because the article is likely to have had changes adding other material.)

And even if this were indicated properly, it would still be necessary to remove most of the material as POV. DGG ( talk ) 01:59, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 02:26, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think this doesn't meet our standards regarding plagiarism? It indicates that each paragraph incorporates text from (and at this point, is essentially solely text from) the relevant report. I'm not sure what further disclosure you believe is appropriate. Calliopejen1 (talk) 02:29, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:00, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference between "incorporates text from" which implies there may be other sources, and " is entirely a copy of". After it has beeen further edited, how will anyone tell? They should be able to tell without going through the history & comparing against the original. We need a better way of handling this. DGG ( talk ) 19:00, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Google search indicates Egypt is noted for human trafficking. Might need a rewrite but not a deletion. Malke 2010 (talk) 21:08, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The topic itself is notable. If this means that most or all of the article needs to be blanked or rewritten, so be it. TheBlueCanoe 02:18, 5 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. with hatnote added to the film article. JohnCD (talk) 16:38, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Baby Puss (The Flintstones)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Two references within article point to a list of characters and a two-paragraph notation on WordPress, with the other references providing details about real-world dinosaur extinction and saber-toothed cats.

Google search provides no links within the first 20 results that meet WP:GNG, instead providing links to fan wikis, message boards and eBay auctions.

The cat is mentioned in the theme song to The Flintstones, but only appears as a background character in three episodes of the entire series, and is not a regular plot element/character within the show. AldezD (talk) 18:19, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep-the cat defiantly is memorable in the song and the show, even if barley used.-I still would keep it though. Wgolf (talk) 22:49, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:52, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The character is not notable. Being memorable is not a criterion in the GNG. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:16, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but put hatnote over the film of the same name that leads to The Flinstones characters section where Baby Puss's character is covered. Fails notability requirements, but so long as the character gets covered we might as well have the hatnote. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:01, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "Baby Puss (The Flintstones)" is not a very likely search term. A hatnote on the film (which would be moved over the disambiguation page) is enough. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:13, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that sounds like a good outcome so I'll change my vote accordingly.Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:30, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:02, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Miller (software developer)[edit]

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

Non-notable individual. References are to an automated statistics site, non-independent sites (Mozilla, Bugzilla), and a blog. No significant coverage of this individual from independent secondary sources. "We require 'significant coverage' in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic. If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate page, but should instead be merged into an article about a larger topic or relevant list." This article has existed for almost a decade, has had a notability warning for 2 years, and has still failed to get beyond the few sentences stage. Mozilla and Bugzilla are the notable topics here, not the individual. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 17:34, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Did a few searches; no evidence of notability. -Sigeng (talk) 08:31, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:52, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There does not appear to be enough to demonstrate individual notability, independent of roles. AllyD (talk) 05:39, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:Notability. Malke 2010 (talk) 21:04, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete (deleted by Jimfbleak) (non-admin closure). --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 13:39, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aramaic cookies[edit]

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

It's food? I don't know what category this falls under, it's just instructions to making "Aramaic cookies". There is some incredibly advert-like history at the bottom about the cookies. No reliable sources either. 123chess456 (talk) 00:51, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. One ghit for "Aramaic cookies". Also, Wikipedia is not a cookbook. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:38, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:58, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 15:47, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Myla Sinanaj[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Myla Sinanaj

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

Performing in a sextape, friendship with an athlete, and the digital release of one musical performance, do not constitute notability, so far as I can ascertain, and I've seen little more than passing mention anywhere -- even less from reliable sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bustter (talk • contribs) 01:22, 19 April 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect If it's to be kept at all, this article should be merged with and redirected to Kris Humphries, the only source of notability for Ms. Sinanaj. Bustter (talk) 08:48, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Kris Humphries#Personal life. Agree, no independent notability claimed, and it is WP:NOTINHERITED. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 09:02, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 03:52, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:01, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - my concern with merging/redirecting is one of WP:WEIGHT. They "dated" (though she claims they were never together) so what would we merge there? The tabloid claims that they did and her subsequent denial? That's not the stuff of an encyclopaedia. Surely we're not expected to list every person he may or may not have had dinner at Applebees with. She's not notable and their "relationship" (or not) isn't notable in the context of his biography either. Stalwart111 06:35, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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