< 5 October	7 October >

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 all. Deor (talk) 13:36, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2013 Mississippi Brilla season[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSEASONS. Kingjeff (talk) 23:55, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they also fail WP:NSEASONS and WP:GNG:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 00:22, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 00:23, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:17, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:18, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:18, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:19, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:20, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:20, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All - The teams for which these individual season articles were created are barely notable themselves, as fourth-tier North American soccer (association football) clubs. Sports seasons are not inherently notable per WP:NSEASONS, and in the absence of a championship, I see no argument for any special treatment under the specific notability guideline of NSEASONS. Furthermore, the subject seasons also fail the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG for lack of significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources which exceeds WP:ROUTINE. I hope the nominating editor will continue to bring all related articles to the attention of AfD. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 06:48, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - fail WP:GNG and WP:NSEASONS. Giant Snowman 08:28, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - fail WP:GNG and WP:NSEASONS, not a team in a top professional league, no indication of any reliable sources discussing these clubs' particular seasons outside of WP:ROUTINE match reporting. Major WP:NOTSTATS issues as well due to the near complete lack of sourced prose. Fenix down (talk) 11:38, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per WP:GNG, WP:NOTSTATS. Quis separabit? 17:12, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all fails WP:NSEASONS and as noted by Fenix, major issue of WP:NOTSTATS. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 07:26, 14 October 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 all. I'm also taking into account the opinions expressed in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013 Carolina Dynamo season, as these teams apparently play in the same league. Deor (talk) 13:59, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2013 Austin Aztex season[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSEASONS and WP:GNG. Kingjeff (talk) 23:38, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they also fail WP:NSEASONS and WP:GNG:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 00:23, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 00:23, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:23, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:25, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:25, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:26, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:26, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - fail WP:GNG and WP:NSEASONS. Giant Snowman 08:29, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - fail WP:GNG and WP:NSEASONS, not a team in a top professional league, no indication of any reliable sources discussing these clubs' particular seasons outside of WP:ROUTINE match reporting. Major WP:NOTSTATS issues as well due to the near complete lack of sourced prose. Fenix down (talk) 11:39, 9 October 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. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 12:29, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Project production management[edit]

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

See creators other (CSD-deleted) contribution. This reads like an essay on a concept, WP:NOR. Not sure how to make this encyclopedic... —Gaff ^ταλκ 22:36, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete-Nothing else to say! Wgolf (talk) 23:26, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:27, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete I would have speedied myself if it hadn't been afded Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:15, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

sorry about that. I've been a little over aggressive with the deletes. Guess I could have turned it up on this one... —Gaff ^ταλκ 13:54, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:31, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - a decent article could be created, see these possible sources, but this is not yet it. Bearian (talk) 22:28, 7 October 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 Moved to draft article space. No strong consensus to delete but questions remain as to notability. As an alternative to deletion article has been moved to Draft:Jin Li (violinist) pending improvement. Philg88 ^♦talk 07:15, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jin Li (violinist)[edit]

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

Trying to find anything about him, no luck. (also the creator has made this page at least twice as seen here Jin Li(born 1969)) Wgolf (talk) 17:29, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:56, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:57, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete currently first violin in the Singapore Symphony Orchestra, which may be true but individual orchestra members normally don't get articles, and no evidence he is notable beyond that as e.g. a solo artist.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 19:30, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I did a search in Google using both "Yehudi Menuhin" and "Jin Li", and I found the following results which seem to establish Jin Li's notability: The Sydney Morning Herald, New York Times, Teen musician brings down Carnegie Hall, and Independent.co.uk. The article should however be completely rewritten as it is too closely paraphrasing this article. Takeaway (talk) 03:48, 4 October 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 ♔ 22:15, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The most interesting source found by Takeaway is this one because it makes reference to Wikipedia. I am not yet convinced of Jin's notability. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 22:25, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ermmm... Why should I have a User Name?, I didn't provide that link to Australia's Greg Hunt citing Wikipedia. The Sydney Morning Herald link I gave was this one about Abbey Road, which contained no mention whatsoever of Wikipedia. As for the article in the Shenzhen Daily of which our WP article is a near copy, it's from 2009 whereas the WP article is from last month. - Takeaway (talk) 23:20, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-One problem I often come up with while trying to find notability is that I find tons of sources that all go back to wikipedia. Wgolf (talk) 22:34, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional keep - After reading carefully the sources brought by Takeaway I think Jin is a notable musician. Having said that, I believe we should resort to WP:TNT and re-write this article. As it is now, I would not like to see it in WP. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 22:46, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
-One of the the things that kept on happening was that it was getting recreated over and over again. Wgolf (talk) 23:17, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not an admin so that is something that I can't know. Since when already? Seeing that the violinist is indeed notable, it was recreated for the correct reasons, and deleted here each time for the wrong reasons because apparently no one here did their research right... ;-) - Takeaway (talk) 23:25, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy until adequate sources found. Overall not good sources, reliable yes, but only one was substantive. The NY Times entry appears to be concert listing, not substantive coverage. the NYT reads in full TIME FOR MUSIC - Tonight's United Nations Day concert, at 7 P.M. in the General Assembly hall, will feature the violinists Yehudi Menuhin and Jin Li. Mr. Jin, , of China, will be joined by the Nippon Hoso Kyokai Symphony Orchestra of Japan, conducted by Yuzo Toyama. It is in the UN Calendar section. The Press-Republican article from September 18, 1985 is a good positive review. The Sydney Herald article was not retrievable. The Independent article was about Prof. Jiang Ming-Dun and the school, it had one sentence about Jin Li, One young violinist, Jin Li, was spotted by Yehudi Menuhin at 13, and brought to Britain to study with the master in Surrey. He became an international star in the early Eighties, playing an acclaimed version of Beethoven's Violin Concerto with the London Symphony Orchestra. It seems likely that there should be other sources out there, but it is also possible that Jin Li was an overnight wonder and did not in fact achieve much notability. At present I would suggest userfication until substantive sources, most likely to be found in The Times and from magazines of the times (1980s). At present I would suggest that the article is not ready fro prime time, lacking verification and lacking multiple substantive sources. --Bejnar (talk) 04:13, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Sydney Morning Herald website is a bit strange. Sometimes it will, but sometimes it won't be able to retrieve the article. The article itself is in part about how Jin Li was brought by Yehudi Menuhin to make a recording exactly 50 years after Menuhin's first recording at the newly opened Abbey Road Studio of 1931, then with Menuhin's own teacher George Enesco. Both times the same Bach violin double concerto was recorded. Apparently, Menuhin thought that Jin Li was notable... ;-) - Takeaway (talk) 13:04, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
takeaway-Sorry I didn't mean as a AFD but the creator kept on making this article with different names each time. Wgolf (talk) 04:24, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Personal request - Wgolf could you do me the favour of withdrawing this nomination? Some user is trying to arrange the article but I understand they don't know how to use the sources. I think there is enough notability and sufficient sources; we should give this artist's BLP a chance. If suddenly it's deleted per this discussion I would feel bad. Thanks. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 21:50, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- comment an AfD is usually only withdrawn if there are no supporting !votes – see WP:WDAFD – but I for one still support deletion. The sources provided seem either trivial, with only single mentions, or not especially reliable. I don't see the in-depth coverage in reliable sources that's required for notability. A deletion does not stop it being userfied and worked on so is not the last word on the matter if better sources can be found.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 22:08, 9 October 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 indicates that the sources are not enough for him to meet WP:GNG, the Keith book is self-published. Secret ^account 15:36, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Harold Terry[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:MILPEOPLE, and WP:ANYBIO. Most of the sources are not both independent and reliable. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:38, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Local county sherriff with no strong evidence of encyclopedic notability, sourced predominantly to primary sources — and of the three sources here that are coming from suitably reliable media, one of them is just the obituary of his late wife (which cannot confer notability.) Delete. Bearcat (talk) 21:00, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete as per nom; fails GNG BlueSalix (talk) 01:31, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sheriff of this large parish, third largest in the state is notable. The oral history interview is by R. W. Norton Art Gallery, and independent of the former sheriff. The sheriff's department history on-line was written 24 years after this sheriff left office, and is largely independent of him. There is a book reference cited too. The wife's obit gives the information on his family life. The article is well-written, concise. And there is not much else I could find on the former sheriff on-line. He is a pre-Internet person. He is also an expert marksman, or was, and was the weapons advisor in two Hollywood films. He had an interesting WWII record, the only member of his platoon to survive the war. I can't see why anyone would object to this article. Billy Hathorn (talk) 03:43, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not grant a presumption of notability to county/parish sheriffs, regardless of whether the jurisdiction in question is the largest, smallest, oldest, newest, richest, poorest, whateverest in the state. A sheriff only qualifies for an article on here if you can actually powersource them over WP:GNG, and that hasn't been done here. Bearcat (talk) 18:21, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I also want to add that official sources say that 12,209,238 US soldiers fought in WW II. Of those who returned home, I'm sure that many millions had an interesting war experience, and many were heroes. LaMona (talk) 15:33, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Billy Hathorn. Dcfc1988 (talk) 22:42, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's lots of detail here, something I'm sure his friends and family will find interesting. However, there is nothing that makes him notable in an encyclopedic sense. This is merely the biography of a regular person, but entirely not encyclopedic in nature. User:Billy_Hathorn, who is voting keep, is also the only author on this article. He has added quite a bit to it in recent days, but that doesn't change the notability of the subject. LaMona (talk) 15:15, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are 531 American sheriffs with Wikipedia articles. This article has sources of: two books, one magazine article, five newspaper articles, an oral history from an art museum foundation, and an article by the historian Eric John Brock about the history of the Caddo Parish Sheriff's Department. The only one of these articles that would not be independent of Mr. Terry would be his wife's obituary, which lists his children's names. In addition to being sheriff, he was a marksman and had a unique World War II experience, having been the only survivor of his platoon. He was also the gun master on two 1990s films. By every reasonable standard, he meets Wikipedia notability. Billy Hathorn (talk) 21:49, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Billy Hathorn, he easily passes WP:GNG. Tiller54 (talk) 22:39, 28 September 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, Black Kite (talk) 17:48, 29 September 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 ♔ 22:12, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Even ignoring the issue as to which of the sources are reliable, the sources mostly mention Harold Terry in passing; he is not the main subject of the sources. The closest to major mention is a short article that's part of an oral history project -- and the context is that it's the story of a regular person, not someone notable. --Larry (talk) 00:17, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is not what a passing mention is. What GNG actually says is that significant coverage "need not be the main topic of the source material." James500 (talk) 08:09, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that he need not be the main subject -- but it's not enough to be mentioned just in passing. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 16:11, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He's mentioned in some detail on four pages of Bill Keith (2009), The Commissioner: A True Story of Deceit, Dishonor, and Death. The oral history about him is by a reputable source, the R. W. Norton Museum Foundation. Billy Hathorn (talk) 00:54, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Billy Hathorn. James500 (talk) 06:06, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Bearcat. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 08:44, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable per nom & Bearcat. If this level of "notability" were acceptable, nearly every elected or appointed official of any level would meet it. Many are veterans; others have no doubt had "interesting" careers, all documented by alumni magazines, local rags, and governmental websites. ~~WP:TRIVIAL.~~ Wikipedia:Trivial mentions Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:42, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The "interesting career" is being the only survivor of his platoon. New info added on the D'Artois case from two more pages in the Bill Keith book. Also added Terry's role in the bomb squad that received national acclaim. Billy Hathorn (talk) 02:07, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Carlossuarez46: WP:TRIVIAL presently redirects to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trivia sections which expressly says that it "does not suggest the inclusion or exclusion of any information; it only gives style recommendations." I do not see how it could possibly be relevant to AfD. Perhaps you meant to refer to another page? James500 (talk) 23:59, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, Wikipedia:Trivial mentions. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:29, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid that I do not agree with that essay. To say that GNG "clearly states" the proposition advanced in the essay is not true. All GNG actually says is that that particular single sentence is insignificant. It does not say what would happen if a single sentence said something exceptionally important about a topic that has no plausible target for merger. It does not say what would happen if you had a very large number of single sentence mentions. GNG is incredibly vague and subjective. James500 (talk) 02:57, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification: The mention of Sheriff Terry in the Bill Keith book is over at least four pages, not a "trivial mention" only. By the way, this article has been revised considerably since it was originally challenged. Billy Hathorn (talk) 12:45, 16 October 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 speedided per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dinesh Chand Meena. Materialscientist (talk) 06:32, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DCM SIR[edit]

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

Does not seem to meet WP:GNG. None of the sources provided in the article are reliable (often copied from older versions of Abhinay Chakra). A search for other sources comes up with little more than same type of unreliable links and primary sources. Apparition¹¹ ^Complaints/Mistakes 22:01, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 22:19, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 22:19, 6 October 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-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:22, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quarterly Review of Film and Video[edit]

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

name 1976-1988:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG -- no in-depth coverage in reliable sources, and from what I can tell this journal's impact factor is negligible. The article has remained unreferenced despite my own searches and despite cleanup tags in place since August 2013. Psychonaut (talk) 21:12, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 21:58, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 21:58, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:30, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer: Nominator has withdrawn his nomination below. See this diff. Thanks. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 12:57, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ (changed to Keep) -- ~~seems like it does.~~ If I remember, the standards were rather lower back in 2006 when I created it. ;-) JesseW, the juggling janitor 03:34, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Based on User:MichaelQSchmidt's first link below, I've changed my mind and do consider this to be worth keeping (although I'm certainly still open to merging it into a larger topic). JesseW, the juggling janitor 06:11, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
~~Keep~~ (see below) per being sourcable and passing WP:TEXTBOOKS and being one of the best known of its type and through meeting WP:USEBYOTHERS: [1],[2],[3][4],[5],[6],[7], and many dozens of others. The applicable guideline tells us "Academic and technical books serve a very different function and come to be published through very different processes than do books intended for the general public. They are often highly specialized, have small printing runs, and may only be available in specialized libraries and bookstores. For these reasons, most of the standards for mainstream books are inapplicable to the academic regime. Again, common sense should prevail. In such cases, suggested bases for a finding of notability include whether the book is published by an academic press,[7] how widely the book is cited by other academic publications or in the media,[8] how influential the book is considered to be in its specialty area, or adjunct disciplines, and whether it is taught or required reading in a number of reputable educational institutions". IE: WP:GNG is not the determinant of notability for an academic text. I note also that it even passes the ESSAY WP:NJournals criterias #1, #2 & #3. This journal is notable to and strongly used by its industry. It is not expected to be a New York Times "best seller". THAT would be a different inclusion criteria. And JesseW, you did good when you brought this topic to Wikipedia. It improves the project to inform our readers of this widely-cited and influential journal. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:13, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article is about a journal, not a book; WP:TEXTBOOKS doesn't apply. And I'm not sure what listing a few individual citations is supposed to prove; every academic journal, legitimate and otherwise, gets citations (and particularly self-citations, as many of the ones you posted are). The question is whether the overall pattern of them, or some other more direct evidence, shows the journal to be influential in the field. Do we have any independent sources which explicitly characterize QRFV as influential? Or can you point to a source showing that the citations have led to a particularly high impact factor? Across the entire lifetime of the journal Thomson Reuters shows the average number of citations per year (including self-citations) to be 17, which I'm not sure sufficiently distinguishes it from the dozens of other journals in the field. (It's certainly far behind Journal of Popular Film & Television and Literature/Film Quarterly, and completely dwarfed by Film Quarterly and Historical Journal of Film, Radio and Television, which each have about twice as many yearly citations.) —Psychonaut (talk) 09:22, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Their own name for themselves notwithstanding, being published in hard-copy four times a year kind of qualifies it as an academic text as defined in the section WP:TXTBKS. ANd sorry, the numerous sources which cite and quote this journal disprove your opinion "from what I can tell this journal's impact factor is negligible". My own determination is the opposite, as it's WP:USEBYOTHERS is the determinant. It HAS impact. Maybe none to you, but to the film industry and film historians and film researchers, yes. And the 2,900 Google Scholar hits is far more indicative of an actual "impact", than anyone simply saying it has none. That other may have more citations or less is a non-argument. We're talking about this ONE, not any others. Thanks. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 10:10, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:USEBYOTHERS is a guideline intended to identify reliable sources used for sourcing articles; it is not a test for the notability of any given subject. And no, being printed in hard copy doesn't qualify it as a book, which is the only thing WP:TXTBKS refers to. Finally, the essay you yourself cited in support of keeping this article (WP:NJournals) specifically states that "Google Scholar should not be used as an indication of notability". Is there any policy or guideline you can point to which doesn't require a liberal amount of shoehorning or selective interpretation to fit this case? If not, then WP:GNG is indeed the standard here. —Psychonaut (talk) 10:34, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The GNG is NOT the final word on notability, or else all the various SNGS would be summarily deleted... and that just ain't gonna happen. What is being overlooked is that the notability essay with which you yourself tagged the article offers as criteria for journal notability that either 1) the journal is considered by reliable sources to be influential in its subject area (it is) or 2) The journal is frequently cited by other reliable sources (it is). Both existing circumstances are shown by the numerous offered examples if its use BY others... showing it influential and often cited. Seems pretty clear cut to me that those criteria are met without there also being a call also for GNG. While the GNG is the simplest means by which to gauge notability, existing guidelines show it is not the only gauge. Even WP:TXTBKS tells us that academic works are not measured by the same criteria as are New York Times best sellers. W:IAR and WP:COMMONSENSE and discussion will tell, as there is nothing that can be said here to dissuade a person who so ardently wishes the topic removed. Consensus will be the final arbiter, not WP:BLUD. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 12:19, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IAR does not give you licence to blatantly misrepresent my edits. Nowhere in that diff, nor in any other edit I made to the article, did I tag it as failing to meet the requirements in WP:NJournals, which is an essay that neither I nor the community at large fully agrees with. I tagged it as failing to meet the requirements set out in the community-approved guideline WP:GNG, and I stand by that assessment. —Psychonaut (talk) 12:34, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You tagged the article and the BattyBot acted upon your tag. Perhaps the bot is broken in how it mis-responded to your tag, but it's still incorrect to declare that the GNG is the "ONLY" notability guide... specially when even when that guide itself tells us that there are other means to gauge notability when GNG is not met (gasp!). That must be one of the reasons why each guideline is headed by the community approved nutshell "best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." If common sense and occasional exceptions were not community approved, all those guideline nutshells would themselves be removed project-wide.... and that is unlikely to happen. I've stated and explained my keep. You're stated and re-stated your delete. Bye. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 13:17, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Incubate, and merge or redirect to Taylor and Francis WP:Notability is not a content policy, it is a guideline as to whether a topic has received enough attention from the world at large to merit a standalone article rather than a lesser role within a larger topic, and requires no sourcing in an article. Nor is WP:N a deletion policy, although a special case exists within WP:Deletion policy for when there is no suitable larger topic. WP:V#Notability is content policy, and this article currently has no source to satisfy this requirement. This article significantly lacks in inline citations, so fails WP:V in two different ways. The topic, however, has attracted the attention of the world at large over a period of time, and this includes Wikipedia editors, for whom encyclopedic coverage with reliable information on a WP:RS is of importance. This Wikipedia search shows thirty articles with the string "Quarterly Journal of Film and Video". The related specification in WP:BEFORE mentions the "What Links Here", which has a shorter list whose mention would have been appropriate in the nomination. The WP:BEFORE book's test finds hundreds of ghits, the mention of which would have been appropriate in the nomination. I specifically found that the first 300 ghits have the words "Quarterly Journal of Film and Video" in bold in the snippets, so merit further attention. But also, it is not necessary that a topic that passes WP:N be retained as a standalone topic. Unscintillating (talk) 01:39, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or Incubate, or Merge & redirect. My thanks to Unscintillating for offering a decent alternative that serves the project and its readers. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:00, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Journals in the humanities are much less cited than in the social of life sciences. Also, Thomson Reuters databases will also miss most citations, because much of what gets published in the humanities is published in book form, not journal articles. However, the journal is included in the MLA International Bibliography, which is selective enough to meet WP:NJournals. BTW, it is not published by Taylor and Francis directly, but by their imprint Routledge. --Randykitty (talk) 08:49, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Psychonaut, what is your impression of WP:NJournals applying here? I researched the topic a little bit, and while I see that there is not coverage, it is frequently cited across many reliable sources. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:29, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- My impression is that essays do not generally apply to AfD discussions. The WP:NJournals essay in particular has some serious shortcomings, and I do not think its criteria should be used as a yardstick of notability. Psychonaut (talk) 14:36, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it should be dismissed as just an essay. It is part of the family of subject-specific guidelines. For whatever reason, it is not directly labeled as such. Why can't it be treated as a de facto guideline for academic journals? Surely the subject matters in determining notability, and the criteria outlined there is not unreasonable. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:47, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's not part of a family of guidelines; it is an opinion piece which has been placed in the Wikipedia namespace but which is largely the work of a single author, and has no particular authority. Note the banner at the top of the page, which says, "This essay contains comments and advice of one or more Wikipedia contributors... Consider these views with discretion. Essays are not Wikipedia policies or guidelines." I think it would useful to develop a notability guideline for journals, and certainly WP:NJournals could be used as a starting point, but this is something the community will have to flesh out over there, not here. Psychonaut (talk) 15:04, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
From the NJournals talk page archives, you can see that years ago it went "up for guideline". It was attacked by two groups of people: those who thought it was too exclusive and those who thought it was too inclusive... (Personally, that makes me think that at least on the level of inclusiveness it got things right). Neither side wanted to compromise. So it remained an "essay". Nevertheless, it has since then been used in dozens if not hundreds of AfD debates. Throw out NJournals, and >95% of all articles on academic journals should be deleted. I think that inclusion in a selective database is actually a pretty good criterion. It implies that a committee of established experts have evaluated the journal and given it their stamp of approval. Sure, that does not give much verifiable content, but all other uncontroversial stuff we can get from the journal's homepage. --Randykitty (talk) 15:09, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I said it is part of a family because it is part of the sidebar that lists subject-specific guidelines. However, it looks like the page was added in July 2014, so I suppose it has not been visible for very long. I do see how this topic lacks coverage, but I don't think it should be a red link. I actually remembered that I expanded list of film periodicals a while back (and a bit sloppily, pardon). Maybe the link could redirect there, perhaps in anchor form, so some basic journal information can be provided by Wikipedia? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:44, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing that out. The link appears to have been added in error, so I've removed it. But I think this (and Randykitty's comments above) underscore the need for the community to revisit the issue of adopting a proper notability guideline for academic journals. Psychonaut (talk) 16:08, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies WP:NJournals. James500 (talk) 07:51, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: In my research, I found this about the series, but it is by a school newspaper. Dixon has messaged me on my talk page, and I've asked him about coverage similar to that link to meet WP:GNG. Redirecting is the temporary stance I have in mind right now, but I am hoping for further developments since it does not seem impossible for this journal to have a Wikipedia article. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:03, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This states, "Of the peer-reviewed film studies journals currently published in English the following, in reverse order of longevity, are among the best known: Film Quarterly, Screen, Cinema Journal, Film and History, Literature/Film Quarterly, Jump Cut, Framework, Camera Obscura, Film Criticism, Quarterly Review of Film Studies, Journal of Popular Film and Television, Historical Journal of Film, Radio and Television, Post Script, East-West Film Journal, Film History, Quarterly Review of Film and Video, Canadian Journal of Film Studies, and Animation Journal." Still looking through sources. Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:45, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here is some very good coverage detailed in Jump Cut here, and I will quote at length: "Quarterly Review of Film and Video: Begun in the late 1970s as The Quarterly Review of Film Studies, the publication announced its intention of being an active review journal, paying particular attention to the critical examination of scholarship and criticism in the field. That goal changed and the publication quickly evolved into a usually thematically organized quarterly that seemed filled with typical to excellent conference papers on U.S. and Western European cinema. Owned by a commercial publisher who gradually went under in the mid-80s, the publication reemerged under the ownership of Harwood Academic, a Swiss firm. Announcing a new look and wider set of concerns while finishing off a backlog of issues, the late Katherine S. Kovacs became editor in 1989. Again thematic issues, often guest-edited, seemed the norm, though the overall intellectual quality increased. A wider range of interests, including TV and video and a broader conception of international studies seems indicated as well under new editor Michael Renov. Forthcoming issues include television studies, 'questioning the national,' gay and lesbian representations, and Black feminism and media." This is a pretty solid point in favor of notability, I think. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:45, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The coverage found by Erik seems to be independent and in-depth enough for the subject to pass WP:GNG. I am therefore withdrawing the nomination, or !voting against it. —Psychonaut (talk) 08:01, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A couple editors participating here have pointed to the fact that this journal is widely referenced on Wikipedia, and at least one of them has questioned why this wasn't mentioned in the nomination. I was aware when filing this AfD that there are dozens of Wikipedia articles which mention this journal. However, I was rather conflicted as to whether I should have brought this up in the nomination text, because I knew that a great number of these references were added by the journal's co-editor himself, using various accounts. (A sample: [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26]. Elsewhere on Wikipedia he's been particularly prolific in inserting references to himself, his aunt, his wife, and his band. Besides the COI issues, many of his additions have been problematic on copyright grounds; see Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20131007.) On the one hand, conflicts of interest and self-promotion aren't in and of themselves reasons for deleting the article, but on the other hand, their presence does mean that we should very carefully evaluate any arguments which rest on claims that the journal is notable because it is widely referenced here (or elsewhere). Now that some editors here are actually are making these sorts of arguments I suppose it's best to disclose the promotional issues. —Psychonaut (talk) 15:05, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't give a fly's fart about mentions on WP. That does not contribute one little bit to notability and should not be an argument for (or against) keeping this article. --Randykitty (talk) 17:27, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Being someone who came out of film studies, I was surprised at this nomination. It is one of the best known journals in field, as stated in A Dictionary of Film Studies: [27]. For a long time it was based at UCLA, one of the major film schools: [28]. Many other sources list it as one of the journals central to the field or as a basis for other publications: [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], etc. One can find many of the major figures in film studies publishing in QRFV, including Stephen Prince ([34] and Vivian Sobchack [35], both past presidents of the Society for Cinema and Media Studies [36] (it is significant that both see fit to listing publishing in this journal as one of their major accomplishments). See also [37], [38], [39], [40], etc. Finally, it is housed in over 450 world libraries according to WorldCat [41], is often listed on major library websites as a recommended or selected periodical: [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], and is indexed by the major indexes: [47]. There is no way that "this journal's impact factor is negligible". Michitaro (talk) 02:23, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Michitaro. If nothing else, I would give this journal the benefit of the doubt as to notability. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:51, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the arguments of Randykitty and Michitaro are compelling. I am One of Many (talk) 04:43, 13 October 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. Number 5 7 11:52, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ananth Punyamurthula[edit]

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

Four references and two external links are cited. None of them meet Wikipedia's criteria for reliable sources. English language sources are not required and I did not check Telugu sources because I cannot read that language. If someone does not provide a good source about this person then this article should be deleted. A Telegu source would work. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:16, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:57, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:57, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:58, 29 September 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 20:19, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It seems to be the case of too soon as well as it lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 15:28, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:GNG, possible WP:TOOSOON. Quis separabit? 19:19, 12 October 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 14:48, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nouman Hashmi[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:ARTIST. Once I got rid of the self-published remixes, wild exaggerations ("featured on MTV"), and links to probable copyright violations, there isn't much left. Only a runner-up award from a social media site. NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:02, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:55, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:55, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:38, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:38, 30 September 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 20:18, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's really nothing notable out there - just Facebook, Twitter and the like. --Larry (talk) 20:53, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - NN. There is a music website among the scarce sources but could not find any reference to the subject in there. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 21:59, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Sadly, no evidence of notabilty. Subject of the article obviously fails WP:GNG. All I can see are social network such as facebook, twitter etc, which does not and can never establish the subject notability. Wikicology (talk) 23:22, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:36, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:GNG with no evidence of notability. --Jersey92 (talk) 19:49, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable, self promotion. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 13:26, 12 October 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. we don't merge WP:OR Secret ^account 15:38, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FOX animated universe[edit]

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

Formerly WP:PROD-ed as FOX Animated Universe (note capitalization), this apparently WP:MADEUP, in-universe fan concept lacks independent, reliable secondary sources. Article content is basically showtimes, WP:PLOT, reviews, and the unsupported assertion that "fans" consider this a thing, so article is entirely redundant with the linked episode articles.

There are wikia for Family Guy and The Simpsons that might welcome this sort of original research. / edg ☺ ☭ 19:42, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:11, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:OR. Nothing in the sources use this term or talk about a cross-cartoon universe. EvergreenFir (talk) Please ((re)) 21:27, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because Night of the Hurricane a huge crossover of Family Guy, American Dad! and Cleveland Show all voiced by the same voice actors on those shows. The Simpsons Guy a crossover between Simpsons and Family Guy again with the same voice actors of each show, the upcoming Simpsorama a crossover with The Simpsons and Futurama and with the same voice actors. What you see here is an animated universe all distributed by Fox. That's why I created it. And a lot of people attributed to this page. - Grohl1 (talk), 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:34, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:33, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:35, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is a compiled list of the cross-over episodes of FOX's animated programs. It's well written, concise and provides citations.Mikepellerin (talk) 04:39, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We have Family Guy, American Dad! and The Cleveland Show crossovers for that. Nymf (talk) 16:29, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. Previously created (and deleted) as FOX Animated Universe by the now blocked TreCoolGuy (talk · contribs). It is all original research/a made up term, and WP:NEOLOGISM at best. Nymf (talk) 16:29, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because of canvassing on Twitter ([48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54]), please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Delete. Redundant with mentions at individual episode articles, not notable for stand-alone page. The "crossovers" article seems also too trivial for its own article. -- Wikipedical (talk) 00:59, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The various Fox crossovers have in fact gotten some media attention. However, the notion of a Fox animated universe is little more than original research. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 00:49, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Fox cartoons. 202.160.16.134 (talk) 09:39, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That IP was me -- just merge FOX animated universe to Fox cartoons [[User:TTSVids105|TTSVids105]] ~ (talk) 01:50, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It makes no sense merging a made-up term. Nymf (talk) 17:48, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've alerted WP:TV to this discussion, as seen here. Flyer22 (talk) 06:53, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Fox cartoons.ADDED: I also think Family Guy, American Dad! and The Cleveland Show crossovers should be deleted and the content included with the deleted Fox Ani Univ as a "Cross-over" topic in the main Fox cartoons article.AbramTerger (talk) 22:38, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The notion of a Fox Universe is original research and while merging the information on the crossovers (which are already covered in their own articles) would give undue weight to them. I do not think a merge is a good idea. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:21, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Perhaps deleting it is not the proper way to go. Maybe it would be better to re-name the article Fox animated crossovers. That seems more appropriate than Fox animated universe.TheLastAmigo (talk) 20:34, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@TheLastAmigo: but then it lacks notability. EvergreenFir (talk) Please ((re)) 20:46, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@EvergreenFir: then merge it into the Fox cartoons article under the section Fox animated crossovers. The fact that many animated programs have crossed over would certainly be considered notable in that article.TheLastAmigo (talk) 22:16, 17 October 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. G12 — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:46, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Saša Mitrić[edit]

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

Non notable person. Ne reliable sources can be found. Vanjagenije (talk) 18:27, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montenegro-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 6 October 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 all. Deor (talk) 13:50, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2013 Carolina Dynamo season[edit]

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

The article fails WP:NSEASONS and WP:GNG. Kingjeff (talk) 17:49, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because, as above, they fail WP:GNG and WP:NSEASONS:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 18:10, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - fail WP:GNG and WP:NSEASONS. Giant Snowman 18:52, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. These teams' seasons are not "individual seasons of teams in top professional leagues" (see WP:Notability (sports)#Individual seasons). --Larry (talk) 20:20, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all: article subjects fails WP:GNG and not even close to meeting WP:NSEASONS. The truth is that, they are not just notable. Wikicology (talk) 23:37, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:39, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:39, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:39, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:39, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per Larry. Metamagician3000 (talk) 07:37, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - fail WP:GNG and WP:NSEASONS, not a team in a top professional league, no indication of any reliable sources discussing these clubs' particular seasons outside of WP:ROUTINE match reporting. Major WP:NOTSTATS issues as well due to the near complete lack of sourced prose. Fenix down (talk) 11:38, 9 October 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 15:09, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jesús Felipe Rodríguez[edit]

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

Non-notable boxer. Peter Rehse (talk) 16:39, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 16:39, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 16:53, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 16:53, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NBOX and WP:GNG with only routine sports coverage.Mdtemp (talk) 18:19, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to have fought for some minor titles, but nothing that meets WP:NBOX. He also lacks the coverage needed to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 17:14, 12 October 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 g11, blatant advertising. NawlinWiki (talk) 15:59, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Taxila Business School[edit]

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

A blatant advertisement, has some indication of significance but notability has not been established. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 15:58, 6 October 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 14:55, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jauhar Abraham[edit]

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

BLP violation not particularly notable person known only for one relatively minor legal action against him DGG ( talk ) 15:49, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And unsuccessful local politician. Delete. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 15:53, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 16:27, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 16:27, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Sadly, no evidence of notability. The subject fails WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN. The entire article centered on a minor legal action against him, and that is of no encyclopedic importance. Wikicology (talk) 22:13, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Neither "ran unsuccessfully for a seat on city council" nor "co-founded a non-profit organization with no properly substantiated or sourced notability" is a claim of notability that gets a person into an encyclopedia — so his notability is resting entirely on the lawsuit. But that just makes him a WP:BLP1E, whose relevance as an encyclopedia topic is so weak that I'm strongly inclined to consider this an outright WP:ATTACK page, meant to actively disparage and discredit him, rather than a neutral encyclopedia article. Bearcat (talk) 22:11, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Bearcat — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:40, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This may not be the right format to say my bit, but yes the bulk of the notability argument on this individual centers on the lawsuit. However, it's more about how that lawsuit plays into the shadowy politics of Washington, D.C. This is individual is politically connected and has worked with several notable officeholders and candidates. Expecting each of those respective Wikipedia pages to explain his significance instead of just linking to Abraham's own just makes more sense to me and more in line with Wikipedia's intended purpose and functionality. Moreover, this is an ongoing legal battle that could play a role in the Attorney General's race. In fact, candidate Edward "Smitty" Smith has already brought up Abraham in his ethics pledge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rambleon94 (talk • contribs) 16:09, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

agreed, but if the importance is still being revealed, it would be more usual for us to wait until the matter is further developed--see WP:NOTNEWS. DGG ( talk ) 17:48, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Bearcat and fails WP:POLITICIAN.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:57, 12 October 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 that it's too soon. Mojo Hand (talk) 15:15, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Madiha Hassan Zaidi[edit]

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

Looks like a too soon page for an actress. Wgolf (talk) 05:09, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:00, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:00, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:00, 29 September 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 15:09, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Too soon. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 18:21, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Sadly, this is WP:TOOSOON and WP:NYA. Not yet time to merit a page here, perhaps some other time. Wikicology (talk) 23:45, 6 October 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 22:07, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Cohen (media)[edit]

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

Minor entertainment figure. No evidence of notability; no substantial coverage. DGG ( talk ) 05:10, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:04, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:04, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:04, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:04, 29 September 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 15:09, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT DELETE - Hello all, I think I have mistakenly put his whole name in as IAN DAVID COHEN in the original title - none of the links use his full name and he does not use his full name on air, I am trying to get a 'page move' but there is another Ian Cohen (politician) which is a problem being administered as we speak - once that is cleared up you will see many more links that will match his status - DO NOT DELETE - thanks BD — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bdchill (talk • contribs) 12:09, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A single blurb in a source about leaving a network is apparently all there is. Nothing else out there to establish notability. Tarc (talk) 12:01, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Discussed very little in reliable, third-party sources. Origamite^ⓣⓒ 15:28, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - once again we need to be clear that Wikipedia requires significant coverage of the subject, not by the subject. Years on television and radio don't mean much around here unless someone else (an independent reliable sources) has given those years more than a passing mention somewhere. St★lwart¹¹¹ 00:37, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete full of primary sources. LibStar (talk) 12:13, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and move to Draft: namespace As it stands this article doesn't have a hope of staying, but we have the Draft: namespace and we can give the author a crack at improving it in peace and quiet there. GIven peace and quiet, if it can be improved then it will be improved. If it withers on the vine there instead no harm will be done. Never forget the Draft: namespace as an AfD outcome. Fiddle Faddle 08:18, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

comment This looks very much like a draft that was accepted too soon, though the draft that was accepted has far fewer problems than the article does right now. I'm pinging Mjs1991 to let them know it is being discussed here. They were the reviewer who accepted the draft. Fiddle Faddle 08:31, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm not sure how it came about of me accepting the article, when the sources are bad and it should still be a draft.--Mjs1991 (talk) 10:48, 13 October 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. this debate is a mess involving multiple articles and tons of non-policy based arguments, but considering the content changed since the AFD, this is a default no consensus. Secret ^account 15:45, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Basildon Town Centre[edit]

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

Leviathan lists with two blue links? This looks like a joke. WP is not a directory of not notable shops. Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 14:39, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, a long table of which shops existed at e.g. 28, East Walk, Basildon and other Basildon adresses throughout the years is not a topic fit for Wikipedia; it doesn't helpm in navigation (as the individual shops aren't notable) and isn't as a whole a notable topic either. Fram (talk) 15:31, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for this is show the changing face of the town centre or high street in the Uk. I am in the process of completing the first link - basildon and have several further town centres to add that I have researched it is just the time I need to add them. I aim to research as many town centres as I can. You say they are not notable, but the changing face is shown (which is notable) by the type of retailers that once occupied the town centre, from small local companies to the rather faceless corporate towns we now have. It also shows the changing face of the products on offer - TV rental shops use to be a regular fixture on every UK high street but are no longer seen. So are photography shops. It will also show the gradual departure from town centres of hardwear and electrical retailers. All of this are notable changes in society and are part of social history which should be documented. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, which by definition is a book or books giving information. This is information which is useful to social historians, but is also not recorded elsewhere and would be lost without it being recorded --User:Davidstewartharvey — Preceding undated comment added 16:15, 6 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidstewartharvey (talk • contribs)

Does any of the content have sources? If the list is bringing together info in published sources it would probably be OK, but if it is all original research then I doubt it will be allowed to remain. This is not because there is anything wrong with the content, but because allowing good OR into one article would allow a lot of awful OR into other articles. An alternative might be to transfer all of it into the article's talk page as an archive. I have seen that method used on other articles. It will still be accessible to interested readers, but just not in the actual article. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:01, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have gone ahead and deleted this material from the article and moved it to the talk page. Everyone here, whether for or against deletion, seems to agree that this material, though interesting, was OR and so could not have remained in the article. It should probably be in a separate talk page archive - but I do not know how to do this. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:13, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per the above. And if it were not deleted, all the non-anchor tenants should be removed in any case (the substance of this article), per WP:TENANTS. Epeefleche (talk) 22:05, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Yes, this is interesting and it is a useful record for social historians. However, this isn't suitable for Wikipedia which is a general purpose, global encyclopaedia. There is some good research that has gone into this and it would be a shame if this is not made available somewhere - it may be suitable at Wikiversity but I'm not familiar enough with that project to say for definite. Thryduulf (talk) 23:43, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As a 1950s New Town, the 1950s-1970s shopping area will almost certainly be design notable, even if it is also a certain architectural failure like all of them. There is nothing in the article at the moment about the town centre's physical structure, but that is a content issue. Someone needs to dig up some old issues of AJ or AR. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:31, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A very brief hunt for sources confirms to me that there are more than enough sources and content to justify an article titled Basildon Town Centre. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 03:00, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unsupported suppositions as to design-worthiness don't carry much weight at AfD. Do you have evidence of RS refs that meet GNG or another criterion? Epeefleche (talk) 03:09, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry - I had assumed a minimum standard of source locating was a requirement to edit, and so thought no need to state the obvious. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:03, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The references section of this [55] cites a number of contemporary sources indicating the design importance of Basildon Town Centre. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:15, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as listcruft that serves no purpose, Merge & Prose (to Basildon) is far more appropriate if that's preferred. –Davey2010 • (talk) 03:16, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment.Merge Suggestion The article on Eastgate Shopping Centre (Basildon) was originally called Basildon Town Centre before it was renamed. For those unfamiliar Eastgate refers to part of the shopping centre (the indoor bit) whereas really we need an article on the whole shopping centre rather than part of it. The obvious answer would be to merge this with Eastgate and rename while continuing to work on the article and expand. Too sensible? 92.0.165.228 (talk) 11:42, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eastgate Shopping Centre is NOT Basildon Town Centre. Even the most cursory google search should have informed you of that. Eastgate, from the 1980s, is a shopping mall. Basildon Town Centre is from the late 1950s to early 1970s and was constructed as the New Town was constructed and is an example of 1950s-1960s town planning. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:01, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Erm. I never said Eastgate=Town Centre and given I live in Basildon I'm quite familiar with the area. What I'm saying is that there should be an article called Basildon Town Centre covering the whole shopping area including Eastgate and including things like the Westgate development. The Eastgate article should be moved here. The distinction between Eastgate and the Town Centre shops is completely artificial in my humble opinion. 92.0.165.228 (talk) 18:04, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As for the lists I'm unsure that there can ever be completely accurate or verified. For example the unit that is Bon Marche was previously a Dixons/Currys (http://www.echo-news.co.uk/news/8323246.Currys_pulls_the_plug_on_town_centre_store/). I'm not sure the records exist to know what units were 40+ years ago. 92.0.165.228 (talk) 18:18, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Basildon Town Centre is a fairly intact example of post-WW2 British modernist utopian urban design. Eastgate is a typical 1980s indoor shopping mall of local economic significance but of no architectural or historical significance. A mention could be made of Eastgate Shopping Centre as part of the later history of Basildon Town Centre, but I think they are far too different as subjects to ever be merged. The lists issue is a content issue, not an AfD issue. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:54, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eastgate was the largest indoor shopping mall in Europe back in 1985 so I can't agree with the suggestion it is of no historical significance. Now not all that significant but back before Lakeside, Bluewater and Westfield something of a novelty. 92.0.165.228 (talk) 20:41, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that merging Eastgate into this article is something to be considered further as neither article is anywhere near large enough that if merged there would be need for summary style articles. -- PBS (talk) 16:58, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 00:00, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is a Basildon page, anything useful can go on that page. Not a useful fork. Szzuk (talk) 07:53, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So, by your reasoning, you are saying that every article about any building or monument or notable urban feature should be deleted from Wikipedia and just placed inside the article about the settlement that said building or monument or notable urban feature lies within? Yes? Or is it just for unfortunate Basildon that this reasoning applies? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:12, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm the IP 92.0.165.228 above and a Basildon resident by the way.

1) The Grade II listed status of parts of the centre and the fact that the Eastgate Centre was at one point the biggest indoor shopping centre in Europe means IMHO that there should be some kind of article related to Basildon's Town Centre shopping precinct.
2) I believe that this should be in one article though some do make a pedantic distinction between 'Easgate' and 'Basildon Town Centre' so there is an argument for this being split. Makes little sense to me as in common usage 'Basildon Town Centre' refers to all the shops [56]
3)I believe the lists are ultimately unverifiable. There has been quite a high amount of change in shopping units just during the period following credit crunch/recession. What units were back in the 50s? Who knows?

I don't really have much trust in this AfD as ultimately anyone can contribute regardless of their level of expertise on the topic. Ulcerspar12 (talk) 15:57, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ulcerspar12 (talk) 15:57, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New arrivals to this AfD need to know that the article has changed substantially since the start of this AfD, changed to the extent that I think most of the original objections are no longer valid. The article is no longer just a list article full of OR. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 23:16, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. You haven't established the notability of the topic of Basildon Town Centre. There are no pages such as Stratford Upon Avon Town Centre. Why is crappy Basildon deserving of a separate town centre page? Szzuk (talk) 04:47, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As to Ulcer's observation of not trusting this AfD "as ultimately anyone can contribute regardless of their level of expertise on the topic" -- well, that's of course the very nature of AfDs. And editing on Wikipedia. We don't rely on people having a level of expertise. In fact, it counts for naught. (Admittedly, this can be be frustrating when editors who lack knowledge of ... let's say ... copyright law ... out!vote those who have knowledge of it). But at AfD, the !vote is based on what the RSs show. Not on individual knowledge. Of interest, perhaps, is the wikipedia policy Wikipedia:No original research. Epeefleche (talk) 07:03, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I contribute to AFD discussions and not much else, I've done thousands of them. I have expert knowledge on procedure I don't need to be an expert on individual topics. In my opinion this is just a content fork with loads of OR. I do regularly change my mind during AFDs but I've not read anything in this discussion so far. Szzuk (talk) 07:35, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notability arises because Basildon Town Centre is one of the earliest planned town centre's in Britain's post-WW2 New Town building project - with parts of it designed by an extremely notable architect, constructed by an extremely notable construction group (and is an early work of said group), and is of such architectural importance that several parts of it now has grade 2 listed status (a grade 2 listing is for particularly important structures of more than special interest). All that is in the article. What Ulcer said is true - anyone can contribute regardless of their level of expertise on the topic. Comments like "crappy Basildon" show what that level is for some - and the "other pages do not exist" argument that accompanies it is invalid for an AfD. (And other pages dedicated to planned urban environments do exist, though the standard of architecture-related articles on Wikipedia is generally very low). Also invalid is "at AfD, the vote is based on what the RSs show. Not on individual knowledge". That is wrong. Actually, the weight of an argument should make a difference at an AfD, and (if properly adjudicated by the closer) simple weight of respondent numbers should not. A strong argument presented strongly requires expertise. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 14:23, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have any references saying Basildon Town Centre is notable and you are trying to construct notability through Synthesis. There are 5 Delete and 2 Keep votes. Szzuk (talk) 16:18, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Sadly, no evidence of notability. However, notability cannot be synthetized and WP:No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability. Wikicology (talk) 12:30, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have not a clue as to what Listed Status means, do you, Mr Wikicology? Listing confirms notability, grade 2 listing confirms notability of "more than special interest". Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 13:20, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea of why you directed such a non-sequitur comment to me. You need to really familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policy. I incline to consider that you have no clue of how AfD works. Please kindly refrain from directing your comments to me. Wikicology (talk) 13:40, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is not Wikipedia that gives notability - it is external sources that show notability. I'm sorry for presenting my earlier question rather crudely, I admit it did sound rather insulting, but DO YOU actually know what a Grade 2 listed building is? Grade 2 listing means that impartial experts have decided that there are notable parts of Basildon Town Centre that are, to use the wording of those experts, of "more than special interest". I don't think the notability of Basildon Town Centre can be in doubt - the question is if the article's subject is better in a standalone article (I think it is) or inside the Basildon article, or in the same article as the Eastgate Shopping Centre. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:38, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Tiptoethrutheminefield (and Wikipedia is not a paper based encyclopaedia), but do not reincorporate the lists now on the talk page. -- 16:49, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
- As an administrator on wikipedia you are perfectly aware of WP:V and most likely have resources to search above and beyond most regular editors. Can you provide a ref that will satisfy the concerns of this AFD regarding synth and the notability of the topic? Szzuk (talk) 18:07, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Administrator does not mean super user! My opinion is worth no more or no less than yours. Yes I am aware of WP:V, but I have neither more or less ability to search for sources than you do. It seems that just about ever sentence in the article (now) carries a citation, and that they are a similar quality to those used in the Basildon article. You stated above "You don't have any references saying Basildon Town Centre is notable" but are there any references that say Basildon is notable? If every article on Wikipedia had to have an explicit source that says something is notable, then many many articles would have to be deleted. A Google book search on ["Basildon Town Centre" 1950s] returns several books which if I was reading any them I might well want to know more about "Basildon Town Centre" so that I could better understand what better the authors are talking about. While searing I also came across a briefing paper (Heritage Assessment: Basildon Town Centre) which seems to me to show that this article is not in breach of WP:SYN "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources". -- PBS (talk) 09:02, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - I've just merged most of the useful info into Basildon. If there is a delete no need to lose that. Szzuk (talk) 09:38, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment - If the content has been merged to another article, a full delete should not happen as it would remove all attribution and fail to comply with copyright. Either a merge and redirect or a keep are the best options to avoid such problem. Diego (talk) 13:35, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        In hindsight I'd have voted Merge, the article was so full of OR the nom's comment about the article being a joke liked right, when the OR was removed there was something to salvage. Closing admin will close as looks appropriate. Szzuk (talk) 20:25, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        To paraphrase Keynes: "When the facts change I change my opinion". Then why not strike through you delete opinion and add a new one at the bottom suggesting a merge into the Basildon article? I don't think that is the best way to go and I think the information in Basildon should remain a summary of this article.-- PBS (talk) 12:58, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm repeating myself but Eastgate Shopping Centre (Basildon) is a part of Basildon Town Centre built during the 1980s consumer boom. Look at the image on page 3 of the Council's regeneration plans here [57]. Basildon Town Centre is the urban mass demarked by the green lines. Eastgate needs merging here. Ulcerspar12 (talk) 21:24, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We can't look into that before we decide about this article. (On the other hand, a glimpse at that article makes me think that it may also come here for discussion.) --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 21:36, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I raised the merge issue as my point is that - In my view - this whole AfD is debating the notability of half a town centre! The fact that Basildon Town Centre houses what was at one point the largest indoor shopping area in Europe is surely relevant to any discussion of notability. Admittedly, at the moment I can’t find a better source than this biography of Depeche Mode who came out of Basildon. [58] Must be a better source somewhere. I’ll do some digging. Ulcerspar12 (talk) 22:03, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If this article is deleted, the one on Eastgate Shopping Centre will eventually go too. On Wikipedia, are we now only going to have a single article for everything inside a town of substantial size, or is it just for unfortunate Basildon? The second best alternative might be merging this article with the Eastgate one, keeping the title of this article. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:49, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is something of a Catch-22 but the threat of deletion is actually deterring me from improving this article! I could go to Basildon Town Centre tomorrow and take a dozen pictures for this article – but why when the threat of deletion hangs over it! I am happy to work with you to improve this article if/once it survives AfD. What an absurd situation this is! Ulcerspar12 (talk) 19:32, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is just sufficient evidence for notability, though more would be helpful. There might be a good case for merging, but that should be discussed separately. DGG ( talk ) 04:18, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If any would like to work on this article rather than delete it another area for research is the St. Martin's Belltower which claims to be the world's only steel and glass belltower. (http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/47070) Ulcerspar12 (talk) 19:07, 17 October 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 20:55, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Holly Lawson[edit]

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

Non-notable boxer. Does not meet WP:NBOX Peter Rehse (talk) 14:23, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 14:23, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 16:58, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 16:58, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NBOX and lacks the coverage for WP:GNG. Mdtemp (talk) 18:17, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She's a non-notable boxer with no title fights or indication of notability. There's also a lack of significant reliable coverage. Papaursa (talk) 16:59, 12 October 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. A7 — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:09, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Faizan Mirza[edit]

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

Non-notable individual. ‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Opposites Attract ‖ 14:11, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per CSD A7. Author removed a speedy deletion tag twice. --Richard Yin (talk) 14:18, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also suspect this is a vanity article about the creator themself. See history of User:Faizan(Actor) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and their edit history for further details. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Repel All Boarders ‖ 14:29, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. This article clearly meets criteria for speedy deletion, WP:CSD#A7. Gnome de plume (talk) 14:44, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, A7. --Fauzan^{✆ talk}_{✉ mail} 15:36, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:A7. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:25, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 6 October 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. Secret ^account 15:47, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Celio Dias[edit]

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

Non-notable judoka - junior success or competition attendence do not establish it. Peter Rehse (talk) 14:05, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 14:05, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Junior success doesn't matter. He is currently ranked 44th in the world in his adult division [59]. He fails WP:MANOTE and the article lacks significant non-routine coverage to show he meets WP:GNG. He may become notable, but he's not there yet.Mdtemp (talk) 19:41, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete The article appears to have been created WP:TOOSOON. Success at junior levels is not considered enough to show notability and a current world ranking of 44 is insufficient to meet WP:MANOTE. He also appears to fail WP:GNG with just routine sports coverage. Right now I think he has a pretty good chance to make the 2016 Olympics, but that's clearly WP:CRYSTALBALL. Papaursa (talk) 16:41, 12 October 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. Secret ^account 15:48, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Hill (MMA)[edit]

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

Non-notable MMA fighter- no top tier fights - not that many professional fights. Assertation of #1 Bantam weight in Canada is from his web site. Peter Rehse (talk) 12:10, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 12:10, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 12:46, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 12:46, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A cacophony of grand claims but no reliable sources to back them up.--Laun chba ller 10:27, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

actually, the source for his record is IIRC sherdog.com. But it does claim to be "the global authority on mixed martial arts" for what that is worth. Postcard Cathy (talk)

yup it is sherdog. And confirmed undefeated status at WSOF champ Marlon Moraes battles undefeated Josh Hill in September Postcard Cathy (talk)

Delete Fails WP:NMMA with no top tier fights and WP:GNG with a lack of significant independent coverage. As far as his #1 ranking goes, his website says "At the present time, Josh is considered the #1 Bantamweight fighter in Canada that is not signed by the UFC." The "not signed by the UFC" part is important.Mdtemp (talk) 19:36, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:15, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple guitar players[edit]

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

Non-notable topic, formed of original research augmented by the synthesis of unreliable sources. The author inflates normal musical collaboration, normal harmony and counterpoint between two similar instruments, which is not made special because the two instruments are two guitars. It's like having multiple gears in a machine: it is common, not notable, and we would not write an article about it called Multiple gears in a machine, despite the many times that multiple gears have been part of commentary on machines. This article uses the same kind of mentions in passing, rather than even one in-depth article about a special musical situation called "multiple guitar players". Binksternet (talk) 22:59, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The page has a long history, being created about seven years ago. There are several alternate titles which are redirects to the page including Rhythm and Lead Guitar, Twin guitar and Second lead guitar. The idea seems to be document the two main guitar parts in modern rock & roll, blues or heavy metal ensembles, especially when there are two leads or the lead/rhythm parts alternate. It should be read in conjuction with the pages rhythm guitar and lead guitar, which link to the page so that they form a set. This set of topics seems to be quite significant in musical history and it doesn't seem difficult to find sources which discuss it in detail. For example, see Rock and Roll: An Introduction which discusses the seminal role of Chuck Berry in establishing both the archetypal lead and rhythm styles. The Blues Encyclopedia has a more extensive account of different band structures and, for example, highlights the influential style of the Allman Brothers, who used two lead guitars in harmony. No doubt, there is much more to be done here but our editing policy is to develop the page further, not to delete it. Andrew (talk) 07:31, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A page having a long history is not an argument for keeping it. The seminal role of Chuck Berry forms a basis for our articles about Lead guitar and Rhythm guitar but not this synthesis about two leads. The Blues Encyclopedia in your link talks about the band structures power trio and the four-piece classic rock line-up (for which Wikipedia has no article), but the encyclopedia only mentions twin lead guitars in passing, as being associated with the Allman Brothers' fuller sound, and they don't name the style or go into any depth about it. Binksternet (talk) 17:40, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The concept of the use of rhythm and lead guitar in rock/pop music, and the variations which have evolved from that, would seem to me to be fundamentally notable. But the article needs a complete overhaul, and its a worthwhile subject for us to devote time to.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:23, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck with that. I'm all for adding information to Wikipedia, but before I nominated this page for deletion I looked and looked for some kind of in-depth discussion about it, and I found nothing. If you want to help expand the encyclopedia, write an article about the Rock foursome aka the Four-piece rock band which is really a thing. This article here is just synthesis. Binksternet (talk) 17:40, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, finding sources for fundamental concepts like this can sometimes be hard. All news sources, and most books, assume people understand the dynamic in pop music of lead guitar/rhythm guitar, and its variants. But as I said, a complete overhaul is needed.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 19:15, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And my position continues to be that this idea of a rock band having two lead guitarists is not a "fundamental concept" in rock, not by a long stretch. It's worth a paragraph in the as-yet-unwritten article about a rock band with four players, which is a fundamental formation in rock, and has been written about in depth. Binksternet (talk) 22:50, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The writing of paragraphs is best done by ordinary editing and deletion would be no help in this. As for fundamentals, please see Gibson's advice on Back to basics, including Rhythm vs. lead guitar and Get your guitars working together. Q.E.D. Andrew (talk) 23:15, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Gibson website gives advice to young guitarists. It does not tell us that two lead guitars is a notable topic. Instead, it says that the roles of lead guitar and rhythm guitar do not have to be set in stone. A band can have two guitarists playing rhythm together or two playing lead together, swapping roles as needed. The website never says anything to signify that two lead guitarists is a classic setup, or a significant method, or any sort of noteworthy thing. There's just different ways of working together. Binksternet (talk) 01:54, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:47, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a synthesis article. The articles topic is not clear enough for there to be potential for a future as a notable topic, and while the specific types of guitar players are obviously notable this is not a plausible redirect for a disambiguation page or any other topic.--Yaksar (let's chat) 03:39, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as synthesis article, even the title appears to be made up and only appears in mirrors of WP, or to mention guitarists who play more than one guiar. As the nominator correctly points out the musical theory for two or more instruments playing together is the same irrespective of the instruments themselves. --Richhoncho (talk) 05:00, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the made-up name is a huge indicator. Binksternet (talk) 14:30, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep/merge. It needs help-- a name change and rewrite, but it does seem like there's a kernel here that should kept. Darmokand (talk) 10:26, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The objection is that the name is wrong and the content is OR so not sure there is anything to salvage, but I'd have no objections to the article being userfied and brought back with a better title and without the OR. --Richhoncho (talk) 08:52, 28 September 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, Randykitty (talk) 11:19, 28 September 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 11:43, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per Binksternet's arguments, they are reasonable. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 11:57, 6 October 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 don't think there's enough consensus to userfy just yet, though, so I'm going to close this as a standard keep. (non-admin closure) Biblio worm 00:35, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Columbine High School protests[edit]

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

Contested prod. If this endures and escalates, it may one day be significant, but as things stand it's pretty much the embodiment of WP:109PAPERS – a local dispute over an amended school curriculum causing some schoolchildren to protest. Mogism (talk) 16:42, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So far I am awaiting folks who will copy edit it, and then we will see where it will lead.--Mishae (talk) 16:50, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:55, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:55, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:55, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:56, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Should be renamed something like 2014 Jefferson County, Colorado high school protests if kept, as that's the proper scope of the subject. postdlf (talk) 18:51, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Could be more clearly notable before the AfD is over. I was skeptical at first (kids protest X, who knows why!!), but it seems to be a pretty broad protest in a decently sized population region regarding an attempt to change the local history curriculum contrary to national AP standards. The U.S. Civil War was indeed about slavery, kids. If not kept, it should be covered at Colorado#Education other suitable location.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:02, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If this is kept I'll take the CE Job. To Whoever closes this: please leave a quick message on my talk page if this is a keep—I would greatly appreciate it.

JacobiJonesJr (talk) 04:36, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- Thanks, I already let some copy editors know about it. To be honest, I took a note at how much coverage it got and it got enough for a stub article. Infact, its one of those articles that will be referred to by many future readers. Think of it as a small article similar in topic to lunch counter sit-ins. As a matter of fact, I think copy editors should edit this article to prevent it being deleted, so you shouldn't wait till someone notifies you if it will be a keep or not. Will appreciate JacobiJones's c/e over any deletion. :)--Mishae (talk) 05:19, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Copy editing won't affect the prospects of keeping it, Mishae, since AFD is not cleanup. First let it be decided whether the subject is notable and encyclopedic. If it is, it can be copy edited. --Stfg (talk) 18:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Stfg: Yes and no. I won't argue, but I think when you clean up an article during an AfD you give the editors much understandable article. A messy article can be deleted faster than a cleaned up one. Feel free to ping me if I am wrong. :) As a side note, user SYSS Mouse mentioned that the article wasn't clear enough. That's the reason why I am thinking if someone would clean it up during an AfD so that the article will show some light on notability.
    - As far as nominator go, I think he overstated it. True, some editors do write article on non-relevant subjects which are therefore subject to deletion. The current article though is not about some kind of protest like low wage complains (those will never be included in Wikipedia), its about human rights (in this case student rights). The nominator also stated that "If this endures and escalates, it may one day be significant". Question: So in your opinion every protest suppose to end up in shootout like it happen in Ferguson?--Mishae (talk) 20:14, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The issue was not explained clearly: The core issue of (quoting) ""positive aspects of U.S. heritage that promote citizenship, patriotism, essentials and benefits of the free enterprise system, respect for authority and respect for individual rights." And more importantly, the material asks that it should not "encourage or condone civil disorder, social strife or disregard of the law." People are seeing this as censorship from the conservative. The case is very similar to moral and national education in Hong Kong. SYSS Mouse (talk) 02:15, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Sufficient sources meet the WP:GNG but I think a question to ask is it a WP:ONEEVENT and perhaps it is, so far, although it has lasted several days now, surprisingly, but the Wikipedia guideline says Events are probably notable if they have enduring historical significance and meet the general notability guideline, or if they have a significant lasting effect. So, enduring historical significance or significant lasting effect? No way to tell yet, BUT as best I can remember, I can not recall a US high school student protest about curriculum choices. That is unusual, so in my view, the protest could set a new precedent, and have an impact, possibly, although of course it is too early to tell. And the Wikipedia rule Geoscope says Notable events usually have significant impact over a wide region, domain, or widespread societal group and right now the protests are confined to Colorado, so we're not on firm ground there, although it has spread to several high schools. But, another of the event criteria rules says Significant national or international coverage is usually expected for an event to be notable and this protest is being picked up by international papers such as the British daily The Guardian. So I think a sufficient case could be made to keep the article, see how it plays, although it is somewhat dicey; if it fizzles, then delete it, but right now it looks good to me.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:04, 3 October 2014 (UTC) There is another angle, interesting one, at play here -- how students are getting sharper and more tuned in, possibly because of the Internet, possibly because of the best stuff on the Internet, and can challenge the high school curriculum people and teachers, that is, students have outpaced the teachers here -- definitely an interesting aspect, pushing me towards a stronger keep.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:07, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thats exactly the point, is it is not ONE EVENT. The event is of interest to WikiProject Colorado only, yes, and initialy it was covered only by the Denver Post and other Colorado specific media, but then it was covered in The Guardian (2 times) and The Washington Post (1 time). So, in conclusion not every event suppose to be widespread nationaly or globally. I will search for more scope and see what I will be able to come up with. :)--Mishae (talk) 17:46, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:ONEEVENT is a shortcut to Wikipedia:Notability (people)#People notable for only one event, and as this is about an event, not about a person or people, ONEEVENT is a red herring here. --Stfg (talk) 21:52, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Userfy -- Tom's arguments above have convinced me it's too soon. "The protest could set a new precedent" is speculation (WP:CRYSTAL). "To see how it plays" means we don't know why it's notable yet -- it would become notable, if at all, when we've seen how it plays. That about the students getting "more tuned in" is pure original research. All about censorship and student rights? BS! It's a local teenage rebellion. Happens everywhere. --Stfg (talk) 00:47, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Changed from Delete to Userfy. Much better idea since the work is kept in case it ever does become notable. Thanks Miniapolis. --Stfg (talk) 15:54, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe happens everywhere else, but not in the US, not US high school students, not protesting curriculum issues.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:55, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's interesting, that I agree with with most of the points which Tomwsulcer makes above although I arrive at the opposite decision. There are quite a few other localized incidents which are picked up in foreign papers (particularly those in GB and Israel), which I don't think initially merit an encyclopedia article. At this point, this I would put this in that same class.Onel5969 (talk) 02:57, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Move and Re-focus. The protests meet WP:GNG and have had significant coverage in diverse, independent sources. I think it needs focussing away from one particular school to the area affected by the changes protesters are complaining about. Perhaps it can be merged into Jefferson County Public Schools (Colorado), where it's already mentioned. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 03:39, 4 October 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 11:42, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think I accidentally created a duplicate of this page at 2014 Colorado student protests. I guess I'll redirect it here unless someone tells me I shouldn't. Jinkinson talk to me 13:40, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, certainly good deal secondary source coverage and discussion among multiple references. — Cirt (talk) 21:02, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Cirt: Where? I see two local papers, one local radio station, one local TV station, the Guardian website hosting an AP report, and a blog. Other than the Guardian, which is just their reposting of an AP story and not their own journalism, there is no indication at all that this has generated the slightest coverage or discussion outside the town in question. Mogism (talk) 21:24, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - The Associated Press gets it covered in most major newspapers in the United States. The fact that it then gets picked up in the United Kingdom is most certainly significant. — Cirt (talk) 21:25, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Cirt: Possibly not. The sources date from 23 September to 3 October 2014. That's what WP:109PAPERS is all about, isn't it? --Stfg (talk) 21:52, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - Not if one of the papers is in a different country, no. — Cirt (talk) 22:56, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        I think you're misunderstanding the nature of the Guardian. Yes, the company itself is based in London and the print version is only published in London, but Guardian US is a separate virtual paper based in New York and aimed at American readers. From the "Tell us: how did your school teach Columbus Day?" link, and the Nicky Woolf byline, this clearly appeared in Guardian US and not the Guardian itself. Mogism (talk) 23:18, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is a major, ongoing series of rolling strikes in the largest school district in Colorado, extensively covered in The Guardian. Ya dont like The Guardian? Then try CBS-Denver. Or Fox News. ABC News. Or The Denver Post. Ad infinitum. This is a major story of historic importance to the American student movement, which is a real thing. Carrite (talk) 04:17, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename per postdlf. Lightbreather (talk) 15:53, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A clear Keep due to extensive, ongoing, detailed, national-level coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:46, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy until it meets the "enduring notability" required by WP:NOTNEWS. As Stfg says, copyediting is irrelevant to notability; the article can be cleaned up if and when it's suitable for mainspace. Miniapolis 20:52, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into AP United States History - This may seem weird, but hear me out on this one. It's pretty clear these protests have some coverage in regard to the recent push for AP History to contain more patriotism. Would that not possibly warrant a section in the course article itself as an event affecting it? I'm very sketchy of the subject's overall notability and due weight, and very sketchy on the title (seriously, it seems to be dubious based on the Columbine High School massacre), but I could see the subject itself being preserved as part of the main article on the course. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 20:29, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy this for now, until the lasting notability is clearer. I am not at all convinced that this won't be a WP:ONEEVENT flash in the pan that is forgotten in a couple of weeks. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:07, 20 October 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Keep the nature of the coverage and the general implication for US education indicates that it is more likely than not to have long term significance. DGG ( talk ) 07:37, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this meets a probable cause threshold for notability, per DGG. It likely (although not certainly) would have long-term consequences. Bearian (talk) 13:59, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:05, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Grimm Grimm[edit]

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

well looks like this was up for a speedy but someone deleted it-this seems to be an unotable singer as of now. Wgolf (talk) 21:00, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing here, their record label doesn't even have a page. Szzuk (talk) 12:33, 30 September 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 11:41, 6 October 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. Non-notable mall as evidenced by consensus. Philg88 ^♦talk 06:06, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New Market Mall[edit]

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

No evidence of notability; no context (the article doesn't even say where this mall is or was located); no references; no indication of whether it still exists or not - my guess is not. I think they might have meant this center in Columbus, Ohio, [60] listed at DeadMalls.com. If that's the one, there were a few local news stories in 2011 about possible redevelopment. And I found a 2014 story saying that a hotel is being built on the former site of the Columbus New Market Mall,[61] confirming my hunch that this place has quietly gone out of business (if this is the same mall the article is talking about). (I'm striking these comments since the article has been improved to meet some of these concerns, although it doesn't at this time have the information that the mall has apparently been demolished.) Regardless of all this speculation, it was never more than a tiny strip mall and did not meet our criteria for notability of a mall. MelanieN (talk) 22:03, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to link to the relevant section of Common Outcomes: WP:NPLACE. --MelanieN (talk) 22:52, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 22:08, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 22:08, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable trivial mall. References do not meet the requirements of WP:RS. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:36, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment An alternate search term is "Victoria Place". Unscintillating (talk) 01:36, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What do you base that on? Victoria Place in Columbus appears to be an apartment complex, not a mall. --MelanieN (talk) 02:01, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Keep I found fifteen references on Proquest for "New Market Mall", five for "Victoria Place", and on EbscoHost mobile I found three for "New Market Mall". All of these references have at least some WP:GNG coverage. This was one of the sad cases in which an historic downtown district was razed to build a new shopping mecca, only to see the dreams dashed, with concern that the character of the downtown had been lost. There is material about two closely related businesses. La Cave du Vin was located in Victoria Place and was owned by one of the people who tried to remake the mall, and was noted in Cleveland as having the best wine selection in the state of Ohio. Carlisle's is sometimes considered to be next door, but other times is considered to be an anchor for the mall. At one point, the mall owner started to wall up the entrance to Carlisle's from the indoor mall before a judge stepped in.

For the Columbus Dispatch, they only provide the snippets. Here are a couple of the citations, more on request:

KUEHNER, J. C. (1994, Jan 30). NOSTALGIC VIEW OF A VISION OF FUTURE `. . .THE CHARACTER OF THE TOWN WAS DESTROYED WHEN THOSE BUILDINGS WERE TORN DOWN.'. The Plain Dealer Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/291590016

Business First-Columbus. June 6, 1997, Vol. 13 Issue 41, p1, Publisher: American City Business Journals, Inc., "Don M. Casto Organization has extended its Northwest reach with the purchase of New Market Mall at Sawmill Road and I-270. Casto, through an affiliate, bought the 193,000-square-foot enclosed..."

Unscintillating (talk) 02:05, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. On further searching: There was a New Market Mall which was later renamed Victoria Place,[62]] but it was in Painesville, in Lake County (northeast corner of the state of Ohio). The New Market Mall which is the subject of this article was in Columbus, in Franklin County, in the middle of the state. Hundreds of miles apart. You need to look harder at your sources to see if they are actually about a mall in Columbus. --MelanieN (talk) 02:18, 30 September 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 11:40, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable mall; does not meet GNG or any other applicable criteria. Epeefleche (talk) 20:14, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Limiting the search for the mall in Columbus, Ohio (thanks, MelanieN), it's a non-notable mall. --Larry (talk) 21:17, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No one has requested more citations, and of the two references I listed, one shows that the mall in Columbus was an enclosed mall. Only MelanieN has provided any repeatable search results. No one has disputed that the other New Market Mall in Ohio is wp:notable. The content contributor who created the article has not made any more edits to Wikipedia.

Rather than Wikipedians depending on MelanieN to disambiguate this topic going forward, I suggest that this page become a dab page. Interestingly, the fictional Al Bundy worked in New Market Mall. I also recall another New Market Mall, possibly in Virginia. Unscintillating (talk) 02:18, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DAB page for what??? The mall in Columbus isn't notable. The other mall is marginal; if you think there should be an article about it, you could completely rewrite this article so it's about the mall in Painesville, and see if it passes muster as notable. Or better, you could let this one be blown up and then create an article about the one in Painesville. But we certainly aren't going to want a DAB page for a couple of malls, neither of which have articles, and one of which has been shown not to deserve an article. --MelanieN (talk) 03:52, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Who is "we", and why is this a certainty? Unscintillating (talk) 04:39, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That will be determined by whether anyone else supports your suggestion. And also by WP:DAB, where it says "Disambiguation in Wikipedia is the process of resolving the conflicts that arise when a single term is ambiguous—when it refers to more than one topic covered by Wikipedia. (A "topic covered by Wikipedia" is either the main subject of an article, or a minor subject covered by an article in addition to the article's main subject.)" Where are the articles, or the coverage, about these malls? --MelanieN (talk) 04:56, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Columbus, Ohio already has a shopping section, so first move the current article to New Market Mall (Columbus) and then merge a sentence and redirect to Columbus, Ohio. Likewise, Painesville, Ohio could use a mention about this topic, and it would then only be necessary to create a redirect, New Market Mall (Painesville). The last step is to expand the current topic (which at this point is a redirect) into a DAB page with two entries. Unscintillating (talk) 05:55, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:29, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ruchir Sharma[edit]

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

contested prod. the article is basically pundit spam, low on biographical detail. few biography sources upon gsearch. created and maintained by spa Ohc ^¡digame! 01:12, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Article was created in accordance with Wikipedia policy and every reference is properly sourced. Article subject is a notable author. Article has existed for two years without incident and has been open to user debate. All relevant issues with article have been corrected. User:Ohconfucius| obviously has some personal view or vendetta or otherwise illegitimate motive against this individual and is entitled to their opinion however the article has been created and maintained within Wikipedia guidelines and the opposing users use of sophisticated verbiage is meant to confuse other users and be condescending. Article has existed for over two years and users have had ample opportunity to voice their concerns. [[User:Zj007ny Ohc ]][[User talk:Zj007ny^¡digame!]] 04:53, 20 September 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zj007ny (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It would be mush appreciated if you would refrain from the personal attacks and address the concerns that the article appears to be promotion for the subject's book and only minimally biographical, and that you are not in fact the single purpose account writing this vanity article that you seem to be. Regards, -- Ohc ^¡digame! 12:46, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The book is two years old, how does this appear to be promotional? All biographic references are sourced and the individual is heavily searched on the web. You would be doing a disservice to the community to remove this article. Furthermore, your accusation of a personal attack is unwarranted. With regards to the accusation of being a single purpose account, while I am not a heavy contributor because of my work and school schedule, I have contributed to multiple articles on a wide range of topics. I would like to add that I created this article as a project for school and as such take great pride in it--I do not stand to gain anything from promoting a two year old book, I just have an interest in Emerging Markets and find the author to be well known and knowledgeable in the field and he is a best selling author. That being said, he was missing from Wikipedia. Instead of suggesting the article for deletion, why not improve it or give me better guidance on how to do so. Suggesting the article for deletion only suggests you have something against this individual. --Zj007ny (talk) 22:44, 26 September 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)} 10:22, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Admin Relist Comment, can we please try to move past trying to judge the intentions of other editors and accusations of bad faith, and get back to discussing the topic at hand? Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:24, 28 September 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Keep: article needs work, but there appears to be sufficient reliable sources cited to meet WP:GNG. Bondegezou (talk) 12:35, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
so is the consensus to keep? Can we proceed to close this and remove the tag for deletion?--Zj007ny (talk) 13:39, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The decision on closing an AfD discussion is taken by an uninvolved administrator, who will review all the arguments and views put forward in the discussion and come to a conclusion. This is normally done after 7 days, but can be later if a discussion was re-listed, as in this case. You can't close this or remove the deletion debate tag, and I can't close this or remove the deletion debate tag. That will be done by the uninvolved administrator. See WP:CLOSEAFD for more details. Bondegezou (talk) 09:02, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

thank you! --Zj007ny (talk) 15:43, 1 October 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 11:38, 6 October 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. non of the keeps are policy based Secret ^account 15:57, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dao's theorem[edit]

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

This is more of a request for discussion than a request for deletion. the subject of this article is beyond me, however based on the creators editing history I feel like this article is an attempt to promote his own currently non notable theorem Jac16888 ^Talk 11:15, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As of now the article is just "theorem + eponymous person + theorem text", lacking a credible claim of significance. For starters, explain briefly what notable purpose this theorem can serve, like what big problem can be solved or benefited by this. 野狼院ひさし _{Hisashi Yarouin} 13:39, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:19, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:21, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:21, 28 September 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eightcirclestheorem (talk • contribs) [reply]

Unrelated to deletion discussion.
<article content removed> --Eightcirclestheorem (talk) 14:56, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply] Please do not add the article content here Dao, it is not what this page is for. The issue is that you have created this theorem, and now you appear to be using Wikipedia to promote it, that is not what Wikipedia is for, see WP:PROMO, WP:OR and WP:COI. Unless you are able to produce reliable 3rd party references to demonstrate the notability of this theorem, it does not belong on Wikipedia--Jac16888 ^Talk 16:40, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply] WP:COI and WP:PROMO are not reasons to delete an article, just reasons to apply a template, and WP:OR is not relevant here as the theorem is discussed in a peer-reviewed journal. --Sammy1339 (talk) 23:22, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unrelated to deletion discussion.

--Eightcirclestheorem (talk) 14:56, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add the article content here Dao, it is not what this page is for. The issue is that you have created this theorem, and now you appear to be using Wikipedia to promote it, that is not what Wikipedia is for, see WP:PROMO, WP:OR and WP:COI. Unless you are able to produce reliable 3rd party references to demonstrate the notability of this theorem, it does not belong on Wikipedia--Jac16888 ^Talk 16:40, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COI and WP:PROMO are not reasons to delete an article, just reasons to apply a template, and WP:OR is not relevant here as the theorem is discussed in a peer-reviewed journal. --Sammy1339 (talk) 23:22, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. It has received independent attention as a subject of articles in a peer-reviewed journal:[63], which is enough for WP:SIGCOV. Granted that's not a widely read journal among research mathematicians, but it's a respectable source and perhaps the best one out there for the obscure topic of classical plane geometry. There is a tendency to apply a much higher notability standard to scientific topics than all the other stuff that goes into Wikipedia, which I don't understand. There was even this failed proposal: Wikipedia:Notability (science). It failed for good reason. --Sammy1339 (talk) 23:17, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Alright there are some obvious major issues with this. One is the naming. No independent source actually refers to any of these statements as "Dao's Theorem," so the title has to be changed. You can't name a theorem after yourself. Second, not all of these statements are notable, so the article reads like a summary of the work of Dao, a non-notable amateur mathematician. However I think some of the work is interesting and possibly significant. @Eightcirclestheorem: Perhaps you should userfy the whole article and incorporate the generalization of Goormaghtigh's Theorem as a separate section in a new article about that theorem. Also please note that notability is based on citations or mentions in independent texts. See WP:GNG. Some things may not be notable simply because they are too new to have received attention. It's not a criticism of the merit of the work. --Sammy1339 (talk) 03:04, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hi Sammy1339, Please see: Thébault's theorem, Harcourt's theorem, Archimedes' quadruplets, I want write Dao's theorem similarly form of Thebault theorem. Could You help me? Thank to You.--Eightcirclestheorem (talk) 05:22, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jac16888 , You wrote: Unless you are able to produce reliable 3rd party references to demonstrate the notability of this theorem.

Now we come back to Tran Hoang Son's article see References [7] O.T.Dao, Message Advanced Plane Geometry 1271, April/26th/2014. and we also come back Nikolaos Dergiades's article see References [3] T. O. Dao, Advanced Plane Geometry, message 1531, August 28, 2014. Now we together visit to there:

The cite source of Tran Hoang Son's article is: https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/AdvancedPlaneGeometry/conversations/messages/1271

The cite source of Nikolaos Dergiades's article is https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/AdvancedPlaneGeometry/conversations/messages/1531

Who is post the topics 1271 and 1531? we can see that Dao Thanh Oai posted this topic with his signature is Dao Thanh Oai and by his email is : yeuemtrondoitb85@yahoo.com, therefor Oai.T.Dao in Tran Hoang Son's article and Dao Thanh Oai in Nikolaos Dergiades's article is the same person.

Note that: the group Advanced Plane Geometry, is page to discussion of the journal: Forum geometricorum, please click http://forumgeom.fau.edu/FG2014volume14/FG2014index.html.

Now we come back Dao's article http://forumgeom.fau.edu/FG2014volume14/FG201410.pdf, please see in References [1] T. O. Dao, Advanced Plane Geometry, message 942, December 7, 2013. Now we visit to there topic 942 https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/AdvancedPlaneGeometry/conversations/topics/942 . Dao Thanh Oai posted this topic with his signature is Dao Thanh Oai and by his email is : yeuemtrondoitb85@yahoo.com. So three persons in three articles refer to one person with name: Dao Thanh Oai.

Note that his address at there is Dao Thanh Oai: Cao Mai Doai, Quang Trung, Kien Xuong, Thai Binh, Viet Nam, with another his E-mail address: daothanhoai@hotmail.com. Now we come back to another his paper http://forumgeom.fau.edu/FG2014volume14/FG201418.pdf you see at References Dao Thanh Oai: Cao Mai Doai, Quang Trung, Kien Xuong, Thai Binh, Viet Nam E-mail address: daothanhoai@hotmail.com So Dao Thanh Oai in four articles is one person.

Now, we visit again to http://cms.math.ca/crux/v39/n5/ please see problem 3845, you see that Dao Thanh Oai, Kien Xuong, Thai Binh, Viet Nam it is the same address of Dao Thanh Oai in two his papers above. So five persons in five papers with name Dao Thanh Oai refer one person with name Dao Thanh Oai

So may I write a page Dao's theorem with similarly form of Thébault's theorem? :::--Eightcirclestheorem (talk) 07:30, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Dao theorem are generalization of some famous theorems, so they are nice and notable theorem.----PhamNguyenBang (talk) 14:45, 29 September 2014 (UTC) — PhamNguyenBang (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON. There is a little bit of secondary sourcing (the Dergiades paper) but not enough to evaluate the impact of this result nor to pass the requirement of WP:GNG for multiple secondary sources. I am not convinced that the other non-Dao source (the Tran paper, in "Global Journal of Advanced Research on Classical and Modern Geometries") is a reliable source; for instance, this journal is not indexed in MathSciNet. And the pattern of apparent self-promotion and possible sockpuppetry here (and at past AfDs for similar material, e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dao six-point circle) is very troubling. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:00, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A bout Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dao six-point circle please click http://faculty.evansville.edu/ck6/encyclopedia/ETCPart4.html#X5569 and http://www.cut-the-knot.org/m/Geometry/CirclesTangentToMedians.shtml. And I post this because my friend said to me that Kimberling center is cite source for another dictionary, so I posted. Why I posted with name: Dao's six point circle?? Because two web sites above (cut the knot, and Kimberling ETC) wrote this with title Dao's six point circle so I rewrite with the same title, I don't think I write with another title that time. Please note that at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dao_six-point_circle, wrote by Sławomir Biały as follows:

Yes, we publish notable results of amateur mathematicians. This needs to be evidenced by a number of sufficiently high quality secondary sources (a paper or book chapter, for instance). But we don't just publish any old result (even those by professional mathematicians). We have guidelines that help to objectively determine whether a result is notable in this sense..

So now Tran Hoang Son's paper with title: A synthetic proof of Dao's generalization of Goormaghtigh's theorem and Nikolaos Dergiades's paper with title : Dao's theorem.....On the other hand, because these are nice results in Euclidean plane geometry. Why I said that these results are nice in Euclidean plane geometry because these results are generalization of some famous theorem. so I want to share these result to everybody, so I wrote this pages with the same title Dao's theorem(this are same with title of two papers above). I also don't think it is self-promotion. --Eightcirclestheorem (talk) 07:30, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, I think Dao's theorem are theorems in Euclidean plane geometry, so they should be publish in a journal of Euclidean plane geometry, on the other we also see that has very few journal of Euclidean plane geometry have indexed in MathSciNet. So I think the cite source of Dao's theorem are: Three sources in the Forum Geometricorum journal of Department of Mathermatucal Sciences Florida Atlantic University http://forumgeom.fau.edu/, one sources in the Crux mathmaticorum journal-Canadian Mathematical Society http://cms.math.ca/crux/v39/n5/, and one paper in the http://gjarcmg.geometry-math-journal.ro/ , I think that in Euclidean plane geometry, these journal are reliable source. On the other hand note that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dao six-point circle also will appear in a journal in 10/2014.--Eightcirclestheorem (talk) 00:05, 30 September 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Note that: Now the Dao Thanh Oai's paper appear online. He show that Dao six point circle and the famous van Lamoen circle are special case of theorem 3.1 in his paper, please click. http://ijgeometry.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/9.pdf. --Eightcirclestheorem (talk) 01:55, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You mean: Dao's theorem on the arbelos with thre cite source http://forumgeom.fau.edu/FG2014volume14/FG201418.pdf; http://www.cut-the-knot.org/m/Geometry/DaoTwins2.shtml ; http://www.cut-the-knot.org/m/Geometry/DaosTwins.shtml; can not is small item in wiki. But there are other articles just as Archimedes' quadruplets as this one.--Eightcirclestheorem (talk) 01:59, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You said: There is a little bit of secondary sourcing (the Dergiades paper) but not enough to evaluate the impact of this result nor to pass the requirement of WP:GNG for multiple secondary sources, but there are other articles just as Harcourt's theorem as this one. The Harcourt's theorem paper also wrote by Nikolaos Dergiades, also publish in FG(Forum Geometrycorum). And today Telv Cohl publish this Dao's theorem http://forumgeom.fau.edu/FG2014volume14/FG201429.pdf Dao's theorem has enough multiple secondary sources. On the other hand this theorem also posted by Dao Thanh Oai in Cut the knot since 24 December 2013. So now, I think this theorem is enough long time and enough multiple secondary sources. You can see also: http://www.cut-the-knot.org/m/Geometry/AnotherSevenCircles.shtml --Eightcirclestheorem (talk) 15:09, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think, I will write three articles with titles: Goormaghtigh theorem, Vecten points, Kosnita theorem to show detail these theorems relation with Dao's theorem. Please note that new version of Dao's problem on eight circles will appear in AMM Journal in next year.--Eightcirclestheorem (talk) 04:26, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unrelated to deletion discussion
Comment for the messege: This article is an orphan, as no other articles link to it. Please introduce links to this page from related articles; try the Find link tool for suggestions. (October 2014) Please checked detail again, and remove the messege "Orphan" above because: Dao's problem on eight circles, the article for this section: _{Dao Thanh, Oai (2014). "Issue 5, Problem 3845". In Shawn, Godin. Crux Mathematicorum 39. ISSN 1496-4309.} Dao's generalization of Goormaghtigh's theorem, the article for this section: _{Tran Hoang, Son (2014). "A synthetic proof of Dao's generalization of Goormaghtigh's theorem". In Pișcoran, Laurian-Ioan. Global Journal of Advanced Research on Classical and Modern Geometries 3. pp. 125–129. ISSN 2284-5569.} Dao’s theorem on six circumcenters associated with a cyclic hexagon, the article for this section: _{Dergiades, Nikolaos (2014). "Dao’s Theorem on Six Circumcenters associated with a Cyclic Hexagon". In Yiu, Paul. Forum Geometricorum 14. pp. 243–246. ISSN 1534-1178.} and _{Cohl, Telv (2014). "A purely synthetic proof of Dao's theorem on six circumcenters associated with a cyclic hexagon". In Yiu, Paul. Forum Geometricorum 14. pp. 261–264. ISSN 1534-1178.} Dao's theorem on a rectangular hyperbola, the this article for this section: _{Dao Thanh, Oai (2014). "A Simple Proof of Gibert’s Generalization of the Lester Circle Theorem". In Yiu, Paul. Forum Geometricorum 14. pp. 201–202. ISSN 1534-1178.} Dao's theorem on the arbelos, the article for this section: _{Dao Thanh, Oai (2014). "Two pairs of Archimedean circles in the arbelos". In Yiu, Paul. Forum Geometricorum 14. pp. 201–202. ISSN 1534-1178.} Dao six point circle, the article for this section: _{Dao Thanh, Oai (2014). "A synthetic proof of A.Myakishev's generalization of van Lamoen circle and an apllication". In Barbu, Catalin. International Journal of Geometry 3. pp. 74–80.} Dao's theorem on concurrence of three Euler line, the article for this section: _{Cohl, Telv (2014). "Dao's theorem on concurrence of three Euler lines". In Barbu, Catalin. International Journal of Geometry 3. pp. 70–73. ISSN 2247-9880.}--Eightcirclestheorem (talk) 15:22, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unrelated to deletion discussion

Comment for the messege:

This article is an orphan, as no other articles link to it. Please introduce links to this page from related articles; try the Find link tool for suggestions. (October 2014)

Please checked detail again, and remove the messege "Orphan" above because:

Dao's problem on eight circles, the article for this section: _{Dao Thanh, Oai (2014). "Issue 5, Problem 3845". In Shawn, Godin. Crux Mathematicorum 39. ISSN 1496-4309.}

Dao's generalization of Goormaghtigh's theorem, the article for this section: _{Tran Hoang, Son (2014). "A synthetic proof of Dao's generalization of Goormaghtigh's theorem". In Pișcoran, Laurian-Ioan. Global Journal of Advanced Research on Classical and Modern Geometries 3. pp. 125–129. ISSN 2284-5569.}

Dao’s theorem on six circumcenters associated with a cyclic hexagon, the article for this section: _{Dergiades, Nikolaos (2014). "Dao’s Theorem on Six Circumcenters associated with a Cyclic Hexagon". In Yiu, Paul. Forum Geometricorum 14. pp. 243–246. ISSN 1534-1178.} and _{Cohl, Telv (2014). "A purely synthetic proof of Dao's theorem on six circumcenters associated with a cyclic hexagon". In Yiu, Paul. Forum Geometricorum 14. pp. 261–264. ISSN 1534-1178.}

Dao's theorem on a rectangular hyperbola, the this article for this section: _{Dao Thanh, Oai (2014). "A Simple Proof of Gibert’s Generalization of the Lester Circle Theorem". In Yiu, Paul. Forum Geometricorum 14. pp. 201–202. ISSN 1534-1178.}

Dao's theorem on the arbelos, the article for this section: _{Dao Thanh, Oai (2014). "Two pairs of Archimedean circles in the arbelos". In Yiu, Paul. Forum Geometricorum 14. pp. 201–202. ISSN 1534-1178.}

Dao six point circle, the article for this section: _{Dao Thanh, Oai (2014). "A synthetic proof of A.Myakishev's generalization of van Lamoen circle and an apllication". In Barbu, Catalin. International Journal of Geometry 3. pp. 74–80.}

Dao's theorem on concurrence of three Euler line, the article for this section: _{Cohl, Telv (2014). "Dao's theorem on concurrence of three Euler lines". In Barbu, Catalin. International Journal of Geometry 3. pp. 70–73. ISSN 2247-9880.}--Eightcirclestheorem (talk) 15:22, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not only does the article look somehow promotional, but a search for significant reliable sources comes up empty. As mentioned above, it appears to have been mentioned in at least one journal, but the reliability of said journal is questionable. No prejudice against a neutrally-written recreation should this become notable in the future. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:04, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I write this page as following form of Thébault's theorem based on some articles publish in some journal. I write this page with neutrality, no promotional Dao Thanh Oai(I can not write this page with another name because title of some articles at here is Dao's theorem.....) Please noting that Dao's theorem is theorem on Euclidean geometry, and these Journal is classical of Euclidean geometry. If these theorem is no notable theorem we should delete pages but Dao's theorem is nice and notable theorem(because it is generalization of some famous theorem), so I think we should keep and improvement of this pages. ~~Eightcirclestheorem (talk) 05:15, 5 October 2014 (UTC) User already voted. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:20, 15 October 2014 (UTC)~~. I voted only time at here --Eightcirclestheorem (talk) 16:03, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for some time Before discarding it, we should give other editors interested in the topic a chance to salvage it. I will try to do so as time allows. It is not vandalism, not incorrect, and has indepenent references (so it is no longer "original research"). The only reason to delete it would be "not sufficiently notable", which, at the very least, is a subjective evaluation. Perhaps the article should be renamed, but deleting this article will not only remove useful content from Wikipedia, but also drive away another potential editor who could contribute contents to it -- a precious resource that Wikipedia is running out of. --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 05:37, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PS. By the way, this theorem will still be true 1000 years from now, when no one will know, or care to know, who was Justin Bieber. Just to put the notion of "notable" in perspective. 8-) --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 05:37, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Dear everybody. why I said that these theorems are notable theorem? Because example, in the configuration of "Dao’s theorem on six circumcenters associated with a Cyclic Hexagon", please see the picture on the right hand.

Pascal's theorem, on this configuration, Pascal theorem states that: Denote the line

{\displaystyle A_{2}A_{5))

meets the line

{\displaystyle A_{3}A_{6))

at

P

then

{\displaystyle P,B_{2},B_{5))

are collinear

\Longleftrightarrow

(equivalence) ${\displaystyle A_{2}A_{5},A_{3}A_{6))$ and ${\displaystyle B_{2}B_{5))$ are concurrent;

Dao's theorem, also on this configuration, Dao's theorem states that: ${\displaystyle C_{1}C_{4},C_{2}C_{5))$ and ${\displaystyle C_{3}C_{6))$ are concurrent.--Eightcirclestheorem (talk) 06:20, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notice Editor Eightcirclestheorem has canvassed a number of editors about this discussion and the article's potential for deletion. So far as I can tell, Eightcirclestheorem selected editors who had commented on related mathematical articles before, not necessarily at Afd. The list includes myself, Lemontea, Gene Ward Smith, Reverendgraham, Kmhkmh, Rick Norwood, Pbroks13, Duoduoduo, Tokek, Krishnachandranvn, WillowW, Jorge Stolfi, Markmichaelh, and Magioladitis. It appears that this is not vote-stacking, but is based on "Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)" or "Editors known for expertise in the field." I note that editors with expertise who have not edited in some months were among those selected. I have chosen not to comment on the merits of this Afd. As a new user Eightcirclestheorem may not know that it is appropriate to provide notice of such canvassing. It is good practice to leave a note at the discussion itself about notifications which have been made, particularly if made to individual users. Wikipedia:Canvassing. --Bejnar (talk) 15:51, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Thank to dear Bejnar. Because I want a people have knowledgeable classical geometry who give comment "delete" of "keep"; my messege as following:

Dear Mister X,

I known You because You are creator of pages Y, so You are knowledgeable classical geometry, please read pages Dao's theorem and comment anything You think. Delete or keep pages Dao's theorem

Thank to You very much.

Best regards

Sincerely

My canvassing is neutralist: Because I comment: Read and comment anything you think, delete or keep pages Dao's theorem --Eightcirclestheorem (talk) 16:53, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. It looks, from the above, like the article is self-promotion. But the theorems are so nice (if true) that I hate to see the article just go away forever. Eightcirclestheorem: do you have any referee reports or other confirmation of the results? Rick Norwood (talk) 17:21, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank to dear Rick Norwood. I can not sent direct some review at here, if You want I can sent to You by email of some review. But You can check direct online of Dao's theorem to show it true or not true:

1-Eight circles problem, true or not true please click(seclect and move object): http://www.geogebratube.org/student/m168042

Nice or not nice? please see:

Jagat Kanta Seal[edit]

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

Non-notable boxer. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:01, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:01, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:28, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:28, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Maybe non-notable as a boxer internationally, but he was a famous sportsperson in India and a celebrity. BengaliHindu (talk) 18:03, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NBOX and WP:GNG. Seems like a local amateur boxer. Notability is not inherited from who you fight.Mdtemp (talk) 19:56, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My search found no significant independent coverage. As it stands, the article fails NBOX and GNG. I'll change my vote if sources can be added to show "he was a famous sportsperson in India and a celebrity."
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBOX. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 16:12, 15 October 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. Withdrawn with no outstanding arguments for deletion. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:51, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Demarco (musician)[edit]

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

Not notable. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Blogs and articles copying this wikipedia article are not reliable. Sole album was not released. Plethora of appearances are on non notable works. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:15, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's plenty of coverage in reliable sources, e.g. from first few pages of Google results (searching on Demarco Jamaica): [65], [66], [67], [68], [69], [70]. --Michig (talk) 20:19, 7 October 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 per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete !votes. (Non-administrator closure.) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:42, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hotel Føroyar[edit]

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

Article written like an advertisement (first class restaurant etc) on an ordinary hotel. I doubt it complies with our corporate notability rules. Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 09:57, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Probably the most notable hotel in the Faroe Islands, and has been owned by its main transport company Smyril. Also contains a very notable restaurant with extensive coverage and acclaim as the best restaurant in the Faroes. Inadequate nom. If you don't know "our corporate notability rules", don't nominate articles for deletion until you're better equipped to judge notability.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:27, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - Inadequate nom? Doctor, did you see the article when I nominated it? Ah, yes, you did, because you rushed in 11 minutes to develop the article which was created by yourself. Thanks for your recent contributions, around 20, to the article. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 10:33, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There wasn't that much wrong with it aside from a need of better sourcing and a copyedit. In 2009 most of the sources I added today didn't exist. Yes, you shouldn't nominate articles for deletion which have so many hits in reliable sources. 85% of our articles are in a bad way, is the solution to delete everything or improve them?♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:44, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep, we have WP:BEFORE as to avoid this sort of nominations. Cavarrone 10:47, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw the nomination as the article is now acceptable, thanks to the efforts of User:Dr. Blofeld. Thanks to all for participating and regards. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 11:02, 6 October 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 per WP:SK#3. There are multiple significant coverage found in independent reliable sources. (Non-administrator closure.) SmileBlueJay97 talk 04:22, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A Leading Man[edit]

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

As per WP:BEFORE, I searched for non-primary reliable sources that give the subject of this AfD significant coverage, and found the content wanting. Furthermore, subject does not appear to meet notability per WP:NFILM#Other evidence of notability, as it does not appear to meet any of the criteria set forth in that section. Perhaps this article has been created too soon and can be incubated until it has meet the notability guideline. Therefore not meeting WP:GNG, or WP:NFILM, I am nominating this article for incubation or deletion. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:56, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:56, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:56, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep per easily meeting WP:NF. Inexplicably, the nom's BEFORE failed, somehow missing full length reviews in Holywood Reporter, The Epoch Times, and the articles in Meniscus Magazine, Austin Fusion Magazine, Hyphen Magazine, Indiewire, Hollywood Report Card, and elsewhere. Sure, the article has some addressable issues, but topic notability is affirmed. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 13:43, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a notable topic per WP:GNG as reflected in the article body and the links Michael provided above. In addition, a film getting reviewed by The Hollywood Reporter is pretty much a lock for notability. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:43, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I need to declare that I was the WP:AFC reviewer who accepted this. I use the criteria of WP:AFD in my assessment and my opinion was at the time that, while borderline at acceptance, this would be improved to merit an article without discussion. Obviously this discussion is taking place, thus proving that element incorrect, but it does pass all our formal hurdles for being kept, and has been improved as I hoped and expected. Fiddle Faddle 09:26, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Fiddle Faddle. I suppose my concerns stem from it being tagged for notability by the nominator at a time when it had enough sourcing to show notability... and that he then sent it to AFD after it was further improved. This may have been based upon the poor "find sources" template added by his tag, as the simple term "A Leading Man" is so generic the number of false results is overwhelming. This was explained to him and he was invited back to reconsider his erroneous BEFORE, but he has apparently chosen to ignore the request. Even though AFD is not to force improvements I was hoping that being shown the additional available sourcing would have him withdraw his nom... but if he does not, I believe we have a Speedy Keep (clause 3). Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 10:36, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think we are heading towards a quick closure, too. The movie was a challenge to source initially, but time has also moved on, and more referecnes are arriving over time. For me the only possible verdict other than a 'keep' is a 'not yet'. But I believe that the time is right now, albeit borderline when I accepted the draft. We do accept borderline drafts at times precisely because the community can often take things forward. Fiddle Faddle 12:13, 7 October 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 Executive Council of the Irish Free State. Randykitty (talk) 16:48, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

His Majesty's Government in the Irish Free State[edit]

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

Unencyclopaedic. This is an essay on a little-used alternative description of the Executive Council of the Irish Free State. It has been tagged as completely unsourced since October 2007. Scolaire (talk) 08:14, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. --Scolaire (talk) 08:14, 6 October 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 October 6. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 08:36, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The usage is notably relevant to the politics and diplomacy of that period ~~. The main article would gain informative value if the text were merged into it,~~ giving depth and perspective to the topic. ~~, with redirect link.~~ Cites could include:

Development of Dominion Status 1900-1936 By Robert MacGregor Dawson. This presents on p.445 the text of official Dispatch from Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs to the Minister for External Affairs, Irish Free State, 9 April 1932 (Routledge; Rev Ed edition (23 Nov 1965)ISBN-10: 071461467X)[71]
Exchange of Notes Between His Majesty's Government in the Irish Free State and the Costa Rican Government in Regard to Commercial Relations Irish Free State. Treaties, etc., 1934 H. M. Stationery Office, 1934[72], and others of series per Google search, via "books" link above
Ireland and the Vatican: The Politics and Diplomacy of Church-state By Dermot Keogh, p.86, note 17 (Cork University Press; New edition edition (1 Jan 1995) ISBN-10: 0902561960 17[73] [74]

Qexigator (talk) 09:59, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Those three sources only give three instances of the description being used. The fact that it was used on at least three occasions does not constitute significant coverage for the purposes of establishing the notability of the topic. "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail. At best the fact of its use means that it is worth a single sentence in the Executive Council article. Scolaire (talk) 14:08, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply That response suggests want of due diligent check on books link mentioned above, which shows it was in regular official use between 1929 and 1931 in notes published by HMSO, "in Regard to Commercial Relations" formally exchanged "Between His Majesty's Government in the Irish Free State" and foreign governments including the governments of:

Costa Rica
Roumania
Guatemala
Salvador
...etc...

and in other such Notes, including

Exchange of Notes Between His Majesty's Government in the Irish Free State and the Italian Governent Concerning Reciprocal Recognition of Passenger Ships' Certificates and Emigrant Ship Regulations. Issue 48 of Foreign office Treaty series, 1930. Irish Free State. Treaties, etc., 1930. Publisher H.M. Stationery Office, 1930
Exchange of Notes Between His Majesty's Government in the Irish Free State and the Egyptian Government Prolonging the Commercial "Modus Vivendi" of July 25/28, 1930
...etc...

Other citations:

Cáipéisí Ar Pholasaí Eachtrach Na HÉireannRonan Fanning, Royal Irish Academy, 2002. ISBN 10: 1874045968[75]
Irish political documents, 1916-1949, Arthur Mitchell, Pádraig Ó Snodaigh. Irish Academic Press, 1985[76]

Qexigator (talk) 17:11, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to reply: The response to the response suggests that the responder did not read the response. "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail. The mere occurrence of the description, style, phrase, call it what you will, in books, no matter how many times, does not make the said description, style or phrase an encyclopaedia topic and does not address it directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. It is acknowledged that the description was used. Anything more than that is original research. Scolaire (talk) 21:02, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge ALternative names don't require separate articles. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. It is not a separate topic. This can be used as a redirect. Dmcq (talk) 17:53, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Executive Council of the Irish Free State. Snappy (talk) 18:21, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Despite the comments of others above, the usage is notably relevant to the politics and diplomacy of that period. The article has been revised. Let the current version[77] be retained. Qexigator (talk) 13:47, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The content has been copied to the Executive Council article. There is even less point in keeping this one now than there was when I nominated it. Scolaire (talk) 22:25, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Copied? Mainly vice versa.[78] So, let the nominated article stand, with link from reduced content of Exec. council. Qexigator (talk) 11:10, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Hello? This article before I tagged it. New section in the Executive Council article. Apart from a few examples of letters, the text is almost identical. The content of this article was copied to the other one, edited a little bit, and then copied back. Scolaire (talk) 14:45, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quite so, but that does not affect the merit of the proposal to let the revised version of the nominated article stand[79] (with maybe a tweak or two where flagged) and letting the examples be removed from present version of Executive Council of the Irish Free State [80]. Qexigator (talk) 18:27, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The reduced text in Executive Council of the Irish Free State could be:

The Irish Free State was a constitutional monarchy whose monarch had the same title in all parts of the British Commonwealth of Nations and its territories, and the Free State government was sometimes referred to as His Majesty's Government in the Irish Free State.(+citations) This description was more frequently used while W.T. Cosgrave was leading the government, and rarely used in the Irish Free State after Éamon de Valera's appointment as President, due to his policy for constitutional autochthony.(+citation) Qexigator (talk) 11:32, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

+Please note that the nominated article has been revised[81] and the Examples are now as in "Executive Council..." Qexigator (talk) 05:49, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and re-direct Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:09, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Scolaire Frenchmalawi (talk) 02:49, 15 October 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. Secret ^account 16:02, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2013 Portland Timbers U23s season[edit]

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

This is a reserve team that doesn't play in a fully professional league. Therefore, it fails WP:NSEASONS. Kingjeff (talk) 07:13, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they also don't play in a fully professional team:

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - fail WP:GNG and WP:NSEASONS. Giant Snowman 17:29, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - fail WP:GNG and WP:NSEASONS, not a team in a top professional league, no indication of any reliable sources discussing these clubs' particular seasons outside of WP:ROUTINE match reporting. Major WP:NOTSTATS issues as well due to the near complete lack of sourced prose. Fenix down (talk) 11:33, 9 October 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:44, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

10 foot pole[edit]

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

This is an article about an item used in a role-playing game. Most of it is unreferenced and there does not appear to be any significant discussion of the topic in secondary sources (though admittedly it's hard to imagine where you'd look). As a bonus, large slabs are a copyvio of 1. GoldenRing (talk) 06:37, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant sourced importance out of universe or outside not touch something with a ten foot pole (the idiom). Optionally redirect to Ten Foot Pole as alternate spelling (that's what Google gave first)? 野狼院ひさし _{Hisashi Yarouin} 08:01, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:OR with non-encyclopedic writing "A huge part of D&D back in the day was its exploration aspect, mainly in dungeons. There were no "skill checks" so plausible innovation was the primary game mechanic for those scenes. You had to use your mind and whatever gear or other things you could leverage to find pits, bypass deathtraps, cross chasms, climb ledges, prod corpses, etc. Furthermore..." (please stop). WP:NOTE no need to list every last dungeons and dragons tool and weapon --unless we ARE going to list every last one like polearm (dungeons and dragons item)(sic), mace (dungeons and dragons item)(sic), leather armor (dungeons and dragons item)(sic), staff (dungeons and dragons item)(sic), and --please just stop. also for the english language, this might have WP:RS issues since the only sources were all in japanese. Cramyourspam (talk) 17:41, 7 October 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. Consensus, after some attempts at improvement, is that the article is should be kept. Notability was never challenged in this discussion, merely the article's quality and POV. There was some suggestion for what amounts to an application of WP:TNT, but it did not gain traction. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 19:30, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Louisiana’s Evidence Code[edit]

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

Personal essay, completely unsourced, pov. The footnote numbers ((eg 1988.1, adopted.2) suggest that this is copied from somewhere Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:25, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not unsourced, currently being improved by me. Int21h (talk) 06:52, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed on personal essay style (reads like a book report), no citations for abundant claims of fact, and glaring lack of NPOV. Also lacks proportion and encyclopedic purpose. Still lacks inline references. It remains poorly conceived (judging by by above editor's comments on Talk:Law_of_Louisiana - "articles about each code should each have at least 20 paragraphs") and executed article, better scrapped and content built from a solid foundation, i.e., a single, solid, truly encyclopedic summary paragraph with inline reference in the Law of Louisiana article, as I outlined on that article's Talk page, linked above.

Changes made there I can justify the time to review, but I've spent too much time on this substandard article already. Delete. And add another vote for putting new article candidates through vetting process. -- Paulscrawl (talk) 23:15, 6 October 2014 (UTC).[reply]

"Personal essay" isn't a type of style. It refers to the inclusion of the original personal opinions of Wikipedians. The article does have citations for at least some claims of fact. It is not entirely POV. An article on a piece of legislation clearly has an encyclopedic purpose. (There are professionally published encyclopedias of legislation.) Nor does it lack proportion. It has had inline references from the outset. And ... I could go on, but none of your comments is a remotely valid argument for deletion anyway. James500 (talk) 06:08, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Incubate as in WP:ATD-I. It seems like the article just needs to be improved. --Sammy1339 (talk) 00:59, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the material in this article appears to have been copied from an old revision of Ben Bagert. The material was removed from that article with this edit. James500 (talk) 03:17, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. Obviously notable. Satisfies GNG, as this type of legislation invariably does. I am assuming that the copyright issue can be dealt with by simply providing the missing attribution of the compatibly licensed material. The remaining arguments for deletion are manifest nonsense that ignore WP:IMPERFECT. The article can be stubified in a matter of minutes and rebuilt if need be. That said, I doubt that any part of the article is a personal essay. The chances are that any expressions of opinion in the article are attributable to the Louisiana Law Review article cited in footnote 2 (which I suspect should actually read "49(2) La L Rev 689"). And the lede is fine. James500 (talk) 03:34, 8 October 2014 (UTC) I think that I have fixed the attribution problems by means of a dummy edit and a talk page template. James500 (talk) 16:15, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What takes a only a minute is a casual search of a statistically unlikely phrase or two. Pick anything that stands out from the the "original" copy and paste job: "what's old is new" with its direct source, a rightfully deleted section in the Ben Bagert article (itself long noted for POV problems and lack of inline citations where they matter), still on display elsewhere: http://www.thefullwiki.org/Ben_Bagert#The_Louisiana_Code_of_Evidence - somewhere in the history of WP's contentious history of the Ben Bagert article, if you care to search. Wonder why that section was deleted from Ben Bagert article? I'm sure lack of inline citations and POV may have been part of it.

Here, the added word in WP:UNDUE - one man, however influential, does not make major legislation.

Article needs to be scrapped and rewritten as stub from multiple (i.e., both) secondary sources, cited inline, not merely listed, with clear NPOV. -- Paulscrawl (talk) 12:42, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To save you the trouble of searching Ben Bagert article history: user Orion504 was good enough to register an account just long enough to add a now-deleted section (since resurrected as this AfD candidate) to Bagert article back in 2009 - long gone now, as is the user. His sole substantive contribution to Wikipedia, long may it live: Ben Bagert's Louisiana Code of Evidence -- Paulscrawl (talk) 13:42, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IMPERFECT makes it quite clear that none of this is a valid reason for deletion. I can see no problems here that cannot be fixed by editing.

Incubation is generally a very bad idea indeed. It prevents articles from being improved by hiding them in an obscure namespace. Didn't you read the recent Signpost article about the severe damage that AfC is doing to the project? So severe that we are almost certainly going to have to shut it down. I can't see why the draftspace won't have the same problems. The article isn't nearly bad enough to justify that kind of approach.

And you are not allowed to !vote twice. You must not use bold text in your post above without striking the bold text in your previous !vote (the one that reads "support").

The grounds for deletion from Ben Bagert was lack of relevance to Bagert himself. Some of the material is about abortive codes of the nineteenth century and 1956 which predate Bagert. Some of it relates to other people including the legislature as a whole. It might be that the person who deleted that material also did not understand the legal abbreviations (mandated by WP:MOSLAW) used in the footnotes. James500 (talk) 01:37, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Incubate as in WP:ATD-I. Vote changed, prior bold text deleted above; I read of "longstanding history" of "multiple voting" and thought it was the law in Louisiana - mea culpa)

First-time editors may need encouragement, per Signpost article, but verbatim copy and paste from deleted WP past doesn't warrant experienced editors' time to "fix" when content already went through editorial mill years ago. Waste of time (not another vote; a declaration). It would be more efficient to completely rewrite -- without WP:UNDUE emphasis on Bagert and restricting content to pertinent material from properly cited secondary sources. -- Paulscrawl (talk) 12:15, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Incubation is the least efficient way to rewrite an article. (We stopped using the article incubator because this approach does not work). You have not advanced any arguments that are grounds for it. The fact that this content was edited out of another article without being replaced isn't relevant because that edit was, frankly, wrong. It was a mistake. The "editorial mill" is not very good at getting things right. In any event, "edited out of another article" has never been a grounds for ... anything. We will not incubate an article because it has (mild) POV. We will not incubate an article because parts of it lack clear inline citations. It is not appropriate to restrict content exclusively to secondary sources. We have a preference for them, but we have always used primary and tertiary sources aswell. That is policy. James500 (talk) 16:15, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, most educational and encyclopedic. — Cirt (talk) 17:24, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although the nomination was perhaps warranted, the recent improvements seem to show that it unequivocally meets GNG. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:48, 19 October 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. Secret ^account 16:03, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia neologism[edit]

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

Fails GNG and runs into trouble with WP:NEO. Frankly, I had a hard time just figuring out what the subject of this article is. There may be a few sources talking about neologisms' place on Wikipedia, but the concept of a "Wikipedia neologism," as the article itself states, is a neologism. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:10, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 10:13, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:47, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question: What is the topic of this article? Neologisms that can be found on Wikipedia? Neologisms popularized by Wikipedia? Neologisms first used on Wikipedia? —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:00, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - obviously notable, just previously not titled as with all the other "Wikipedia and..." articles. I have moved it. Wikipedia and neologisms would include all 3 of the above: Neologisms that can be found on Wikipedia? Neologisms popularized by Wikipedia and Neologisms first used on Wikipedia. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:57, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete? - From what I can tell, this is some sections hobbled together based on times that neologisms in the context of Wikipedia were discussed. There's not a coherent line connecting it, and the general topic of neologisms in Wikipedia does not seem to have adequate coverage to justify existence outside the individual articles for the two topics.--Yaksar (let's chat) 07:36, 8 October 2014 (UTC) I still am not a fan of the cobbled nature of the article and worry that it is potentially a synthesis, but I'm holding off on this !vote until I have had more time to look through sourcing.--Yaksar (let's chat) 07:03, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:06, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete chaotic original research based on WP:SYNTH. "wikipedia and" is a slippery slope -No.Altenmann >t 04:02, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Part of the problem is that the article is a mess -- so much so that, as noted above, it's not clear what the article is even supposed to be about. Too much is unsourced or WP:OR; all that would need to be deleted. After the start of this AfD, the title of the article was changed -- presumably to help with this dilemma. However, as a result, the body of the article is now in conflict with the title. There's probably a valid article having something to do with Wikipedia and neologisms, but all I can think of for this article is WP:TNT. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 00:27, 15 October 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 13:38, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

S. P. Bansal[edit]

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

Reads like a CV (resume) of a non-notable person. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 02:50, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-Agreed! Wgolf (talk) 03:12, 6 October 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 October 6. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 05:09, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The main contributors to this article are three single-purpose accounts, Rajmay2013 (talk · contribs), Bansalnitish (talk · contribs), and Naujawan (talk · contribs). Two of these have removed the AfD notice from the article, and been warned not to do that. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:41, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
-I put up a page protection request. Also maybe you should start a SPI report? Wgolf (talk) 18:51, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am attributing the AfD removal to ignorance, and I don't think editing an article sequentially under more than one name counts as abusive, so unless they show up here trying to look like multiple independent editors I don't think an SPI is needed yet. But we can keep it in mind if the situation escalates. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:20, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom st170e^talk 19:34, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Has anyone actually noticed that he is vice-chancellor (i.e. professional head) of a university? It's not a very big one, but there is an argument that he meets WP:NACADEMICS #6. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:32, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom -- Wikipedia is not a CV. He does not pass WP:NACADEMICS for his vice-chancellor role as NACADEMICS just grants notability to someone holding the highest-level post (and there is a chancellor). --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:49, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:MILL. What is the purpose of having articles for all VC's of all universities in India?Athachil (talk) 11:35, 17 October 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 16:13, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Miapolis[edit]

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

Appears to be a similar version of the article that was deleted back in April for a "Lack of Reliable Sources"[82] to verify notability. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:22, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The new version doesn't provide reliable sources either. It only lists a blog post from 2011. This article should be deleted. ThoseArentMuskets (talk) 17:53, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are no notability guidelines for buildings, so I will treat it as an artwork. In WP:MOVIE it is stated that films that have "not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography" are not notable. In WP:NBOOK it states that as yet unpublished book are in general not notable. I think the same goes for this building which, although 10 years in planning, is still looking for funding, and still lacks building permission, as indicated in the provided source. There is no guarantee that it will ever be built. - Takeaway (talk) 05:59, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete with suggestion to create protect title. Proposal was never serious and only for publicity. Furthermore land is owned and currently being developed by a separate entity and the FAA would have never approved it as there maximum height limit for this area is about one third of this. B137 (talk) 02:17, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:18, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Black Jackets Company[edit]

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

No proof whatsoever in the references or our there on Google that this is a notable organization. It reads a bit hoaxy, though it's probably just a club founded with some humor. Anyway, there's nothing here nor there to support notability. Drmies (talk) 04:02, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: "post-scolopéndric" (after the centipede?) does indeed make it look hoaxy, though I suspect spam rather than a real hoax. The Notes and References are merely contact details. The External links seem to have been added by Kolp to promote himself. There are a fair number of hits on Google but they look like primary sources. --Stfg (talk) 14:51, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Hoax or not, lack of significant coverage in multiple reliable independent secondary sources. Fails to meet the requirements of any of our notability guidelines by a wide mile. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 02:24, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can't find any reliable sources to establish notability — as DV says, not by a wide mile — and man what a lot of redlinks. Post-scolopéndric, the art movement the company "supports" (?) seems to be unknown to Google as well as to Wikipedia, although "Scolopendric" is a character in World of Warcraft.[83] Might the black-jacket composers possibly be gamers? Anyway. Not sure why you didn't PROD it, Drmies. Bishonen | talk 14:46, 10 October 2014 (UTC).[reply]
- I don't believe in PROD, except for BLP PROD... Drmies (talk) 15:10, 10 October 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 all. Secret ^account 16:04, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2013 Ottawa Fury season[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSEASONS and WP:GNG. Kingjeff (talk) 03:53, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because, like above, it fails WP:NSEASONS and WP:GNG:

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - fail WP:GNG and WP:NSEASONS. Giant Snowman 17:30, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - fail WP:GNG and WP:NSEASONS, not a team in a top professional league, no indication of any reliable sources discussing these clubs' particular seasons outside of WP:ROUTINE match reporting. Major WP:NOTSTATS issues as well due to the near complete lack of sourced prose. Fenix down (talk) 11:34, 9 October 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. Secret ^account 16:12, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Under the Lights III[edit]

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

Delete Merge to 2014 Michigan Wolverines football team and 2014 Penn State Nittany Lions football team; as successfully argued at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Under the Lights at the Big House and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Under the Lights II, WikiProject College football has a long-standing policy that stand-alone articles for regular season college football games should exist only in cases where the game was of great significance to the history of college football. This doesn't cut it now, and likely will not after the game is played. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:13, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Update I've changed the proposal from Merge to Delete now that the game has ample coverage at 2014 Michigan Wolverines football team and 2014 Penn State Nittany Lions football team. Jweiss11 (talk) 07:52, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Judging from the Wolverines record right now, unless they set multiple records next weekend and win (or if Brady Hoke pulls something else that earns more alumni ire), this clearly is going to only earn the notability of an average Northwestern/Purdue tilt. No prejudice to restoration if the game turns out to be notable, but a 2-4 team going against a 4-1 squad doesn't usually warrant an article. Nate • (chatter) 03:28, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a network marketing tag, not a hallmark of notability. JohnInDC (talk) 03:30, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per Jweiss11's logic above. This doesn't even come close to the WP:CFB standard and previous AfD outcomes for stand-alone articles for individual CFB games. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:35, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I have changed my !vote from "merge" to "delete" following the playing of the game on October 11, 2014. A post-game summary has been included in the 2014 Michigan Wolverines football team article, and I no longer believe there is any remaining material from the subject article that would be useful to merge. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 06:38, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to 2014 Michigan Wolverines football team, per prior AfD precedent cited by Jweiss11 above, and SALT all future "Under the Lights" article titles (i.e. Under the Lights IV, Under the Lights V, ect.) as the creator of these has obviously learned nothing from the two previous, identical AfD's from last year. The reason why season articles like 2014 Michigan Wolverines football team and 2014 Penn State Nittany Lions football team exist is so that we don't need to have tons of junk articles like this one cluttering up Wikipedia with random articles about random individual regular season football games. The information about regular season football games like this one belongs under their respective season articles, except in the most exceptional of circumstances, which this clearly is not, nor is it likely ever to be. Ejgreen77 (talk) 04:42, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge fails WP:GNG. Doesn't even meet the standard in essay WP:CFBGAME. Throw in WP:CRYSTAL and it's a deletion hat trick.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:46, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is the 3rd night game at Michigan Stadium as well as their 1st one against a Big Ten opponent. In fact, articles such as Under the Lights at the Big House and Under the Lights II should not have ben deleted as Under the Lights at he Big House set a then-NCAA attendance record and was the 1st night game in Michigan Stadium history and also featured a Michigan comeback from a 24-7 deficit to win 35-31 and Under the Lights II the current NCAA Attendance record and was just the 2nd night game in Michigan Stadium history. You never know, something historically significant can happen in Under the Lights III just like in the 1st two night games at Michigan Stadium. Michiganwolverines2014 (talk) 20:22 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment - MichiganWolverines2014, I am literally laughing out loud: there is nothing of historical significance about the "3rd night game at Michigan Stadium"; if that were our standard for stand-alone articles for regular season CFB games, we would have hundreds of them, not the handful we do now. This was an ordinary game which elicited WP:ROUTINE post-game coverage. Single-game articles such as this one need to be deleted with extreme prejudice. My rule of thumb: if the game doesn't merit at least two sentences in the main Michigan Wolverines football article, it probably doesn't merit a stand-alone article of its own. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:11, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is nothing currently notable about this game other than WP:ROUTINE coverage. If something CRAZY happens, then I'm all for recreating the article. — X96lee15 (talk) 18:27, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Move to combine 17 games are presently under WP:AFD and responses are being cut and pasted. These topics should be combined before further discussion and certainly before closing the issue.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:36, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Move to keep separate All 17 should be slam-dunk merge/deletes. Let's let them play out as is and move on. Jweiss11 (talk) 17:26, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Here's a reading list of the applicable notability guidelines for sports events for interested editors:

1. WP:GNG: "significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article".

2. WP:NSPORTS/WP:SPORTSEVENT: "Regular season games in professional and college leagues are not inherently notable." Further, "A game that is widely considered by independent reliable sources to be notable, outside routine coverage of each game, especially if the game received front page coverage outside of the local areas involved (e.g. Pacers–Pistons brawl, 2009 Republic of Ireland vs France football matches, or the Blood in the Water match)."

3. WP:ROUTINE: "Routine events such as sports matches, film premieres, press conferences etc. may be better covered as part of another article, if at all."

4. WP:NOTNEWS: "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia."

5. WP:Notability (events)/WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE: "Although notability is not temporary, meaning that coverage does not need to be ongoing for notability to be established, a burst or spike of news reports does not automatically make an incident notable. Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article." (Credit User:Bagumba for point No. 5; I learned something new today.) Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:47, 10 October 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. Secret ^account 16:12, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Michigan Bucks Season[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSEASONS and WP:GNG. Kingjeff (talk) 01:34, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page because it also fails WP:NSEASONS as a club not in a fully professional league:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 01:57, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 01:58, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both - fail WP:GNG and WP:NSEASONS. Giant Snowman 17:30, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - fail WP:GNG and WP:NSEASONS, not a team in a top professional league, no indication of any reliable sources discussing these clubs' particular seasons outside of WP:ROUTINE match reporting. Major WP:NOTSTATS issues as well due to the near complete lack of sourced prose. Fenix down (talk) 11:34, 9 October 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 a10, duplicative of existing article Pornography. NawlinWiki (talk) 01:29, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is considered as pornography?[edit]

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

Pure advocacy with no sources whatsoever. Mr. Guye (talk) 01:19, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by admin Jimfbleak as an unambiguous copyright infringement. (Non-admin closure). St★lwart¹¹¹ 09:59, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tirtza Even[edit]

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

Unremarkable documentary maker. Mr. Guye (talk) 01:11, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:20, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as a copyvio from this source. Jinkinson talk to me 01:21, 6 October 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 all. Secret ^account 16:14, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2013 Bermuda Hogges season[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSEASONS since the club is not in a fully professional league. Kingjeff (talk) 01:03, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they also fail WP:NSEASONS:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 02:01, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete all - fail WP:GNG and WP:NSEASONS. Giant Snowman 18:24, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - fail WP:GNG and WP:NSEASONS, not a team in a top professional league, no indication of any reliable sources discussing these clubs' particular seasons outside of WP:ROUTINE match reporting. Major WP:NOTSTATS issues as well due to the near complete lack of sourced prose. Fenix down (talk) 11:35, 9 October 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. Is there a WP:CSD that covers angry fruit salad? -- RoySmith (talk) 02:41, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of samba schools of Rio de Janeiro[edit]

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

This isn't a list of anything--it is, rather, a program with embedded directories. Drmies (talk) 00:44, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 01:58, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see no reason to that attachment is deleted, why only now has an article on Carnival since before I came here there was only a few schools of samba and everything in Brazilian Carnival. I think this first attachment can continue. this should be the one who knows nothing of carnival. Biantez ^msg 2:54, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Delete. Oh the colours. Has to be one of the most hideous looking pages I've seen. Maybe a list of samba schools might make a list article. However, this isn't it. Unneeded information that is for 2015 only, no references and the embedded directories are not the way to go. Bgwhite (talk) 06:07, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Blatant violation of WP:NOTDIR. There might be a place for a List of samba schools if there are any that are notable, but this thing is nothing like that.--cyclopia ^speak! 13:57, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Cyclopia, a list of notable schools may be suitable (and I think there area some), but a list (directory) of all the schools regardless of notability is not. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 15:12, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And I had before, had before, like list. but just was thinking about change but how many of you guys do not understand, is already in list. I just quiz remodel, but I think even better redirect to Rio Carnival. for here and good to prevent recreation. Biantez ^msg 16:56, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Biantez, it is very difficult for me to understand what you mean unfortunately -it seems your English is somewhat broken. However, the problem is that the list you did seems more about the program of the 2015 carnival than a list of Samba schools themselves. The previous revision you linked makes more sense, and if it comes back to such a state, without the garish colours etc. and most importantly simply linking the schools, then I could reconsider. --cyclopia ^speak! 17:10, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cyclopia, please see Template:Carnaval do Rio de Janeiro, and note that almost all the blue links are redirects to the Rio Carnaval article... Drmies (talk) 02:18, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies I favor the redirection, as quoted by anteriorly. but either way here in wiki.en not have many users who collaborate in making articles of carnival, see that this is in disuse. then any decision on the elimination of this list, do not involve me at all. Biantez ^msg 14:32, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Classic case of WP:NOTDIR. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 02:19, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing's notable. Violation of WP:NOTDIR. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 07:37, 14 October 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 only objection to the article is the absence of reliable sources, the article may be recreated at any time provided it is based on multiple reliable sources--Ymblanter (talk) 07:11, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Raghu Ram (doctor)[edit]

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

none of this is notable; sources ae not substantially about him DGG ( talk ) 05:03, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject lacks significant coverage in reliable sources as well as there is copyvio from http://www.ubf.org.in/awards.html and the image used in the info box indicate WP:COI case. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 14:34, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:22, 28 September 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 ♔ 00:16, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject, based on his accomplishments, may reasonably become notable (in wikipedia's sense of the term) someday, but for now the coverage in sources (essentially, The Hindu) is pretty superficial, consisting mainly of short re-printed press-releases ([84], [85]), or somewhat longer pieces in which the subject is simply mentioned/quoted [86]. Note that the subject's institute, Ushalakshmi Breast Cancer Foundation at the Krishna Institute of Medical Sciences, and the newly established doctor's association he currently chairs, Association of Breast Surgeons of India are all redlinks (and may or may not themselves be notable per WP:NORG). Abecedare (talk) 16:40, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete per Abecedare and Subject appears notable but lacks reliable sources.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:35, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks required sources. The information too is very weak. AdityapSingh (talk) 19:12, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per well-reasoned rationales of the above editors, which I adopt. Quis separabit? 18:14, 12 October 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.