Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 July 7

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< 6 July	8 July >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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. Secret ^account 19:37, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

南山

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

per policy WP:UE we do not have article titles that use Chinese characters. Disambiguation is adequately covered by Nanshan and Namsan. Rob Sinden (talk) 22:14, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:UE and WP:NOT#DICTIONARY... I am not sure if this is supposed to be an article about an oriental language character (南山), a dictionary definition of that character, or a disambiguation page about several different words that use the same non-english character when written in oriental languages. If the first, then we need reliable sources (in English) that discuss it to show that it is notable. If the second... that is not our job. If the third, there are better ways to disambiguate the topics.... This seems to be written for specialist level Chinese and Korean readers... but our audience here on en.WP is the typical English speaker... who will neither look for nor understand these characters. Blueboar (talk) 23:35, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How is WP:NOT#DICTIONARY relevant here? None of the items listed are dictionary definitions, but most are place names. They belong in an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. -Zanhe (talk) 17:16, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The entire purpose of the page is to inform the reader what the different meanings of the symbol 南山 are... that means the page is acting as a dictionary. Blueboar (talk) 20:14, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's a terrible misinterpretation of WP:NOT#DICTIONARY. By that logic all dab pages act as a dictionary. -Zanhe (talk) 20:23, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Imagine an English speaker who finds a Chinese/Japanese/Korean name on a website and wants to know what it refers to, but has no idea how to transliterate it into English. He or she copy-and-pastes the name into WP, and finds all possible answers. And what do we gain by deleting this article? I fail to see any. BTW, the page just had a spike of 47 page views two days ago. -Zanhe (talk) 23:39, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I seriously doubt an English speaker would come to Wikipedia for that. Surely the correct place to go would be a Chinese-to-English dictionary. More to the point, even if someone did come to wikipeida hoping to find the translation, how would he go about it? How would an English speaking user be able to search en.WP for this oriental character? It isn't on any standard English language keyboard... so what would he type into the search box? Blueboar (talk) 01:41, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Copy/paste! Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:22, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And how is a Chinese-to-English dictionary the correct place to go when the name could be Japanese or Korean? -Zanhe (talk) 15:19, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As I speak the language, clearly this reads to me as Nanshan, in the transliteration that I learned. I can also usually tell the difference between Japanese and Korean despite having zero knowledge of the language. On the other hand, I cannot tell the difference between many European languages, and therefore I would go to Google Translate's detect language system, not Wikipedia. WP is neither a dictionary nor a translator. However, reading responses below, I support redirect to Nanshan. Nanshan itself already has the Chinese characters; readers would therefore be able to understand. --kikichugirl (talk) 04:37, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that your sinocentric view is not shared by the vast majority of Wikipedians. -Zanhe (talk) 08:25, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In my imaginings, an English speaker would come across the name on an English language website and the name would be displayed primarily as a romanized transliteration. If the English speaker would like to know what a Chinese character refers to, he/she should go to a Chinese dictionary; a Japanese character, a Japanese dictionary; and so on. That a reader would come across a character with no context to tell him/her the language and no clue as to the language seems far fetched to me, and also irrelevant - Google Translate can automatically select the language, and translation is not the job of Wikipedia.--Wikimedes (talk) 18:18, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, 南山 is a proper name that means South Mountain, not a word. Dictionaries will not tell you what it refers to. And fortunately Wikipedia is far smarter than Google Translate, which automatically selects Chinese and ignores other languages. -Zanhe (talk) 19:45, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We regularly use non-English namings for redirects: Firenze, München etc. This is basically the same thing, except we can't use a redirect because 南山 has multiple meanings. This is the what we can do then. And I must disagree with the notion that Wikipedia is for "typical" English speakers: It is for English speakers of all types, including learners, who may not know the English name of such names but want to find them and read about them. And by the way, I'm against the use of Chinese characters in article titles. This isn't an article, it's a disambiguation. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:22, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Since I suspect I may get a parade of horribles for this argument: No, I don't think we need to cater to English learners by using simple English (we have Simple for that very reason) in articles. But I do think it's appropriate to have interlingual navigational aids, whether for learners of English, for English-speakers using other languages, or any other kind of people who might find them useful. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:33, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:15, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Nanshan. We don't have articles with non-Latin names, per WP:UE, but redirects to suitable targets are fine. The target lists places in China called Nanshan and links to Namsan (disambiguation) for the Korean names.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 03:53, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm, but what about the Japanese names on the list, then? I realize they are far fewer in number than the Chinese ones, but it doesn't seem suitable to completely omit them. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:36, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is only one Japanese name on the list: Nanzan, which (in English) is distinct and does not need disambiguation. I will raise one final point... The main justification for keeping this page seems to this: that readers who come across this symbol can look it up and find out what the symbol means in different languages. However, that is what a dictionary is for... and Wikipedia is not a Dictionary. Disambiguating the transliterations is fine... creating a page about the symbol that apparently only exists to define what the symbol means in various languages is not. I question whether this is really a dab page... I think the purpose is really to be a dictionary definition. Blueboar (talk) 12:16, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, the purpose is not so you can look up the term and find out what it means in a different language. It's so you can look up a word you didn't know in a different language and read an encyclopedia article about it. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 14:04, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"There is only one Japanese name on the list." But did you even bother to read the page to see how many Korean names are on the list? And explain why it should redirect to the Chinese transliteration? -Zanhe (talk) 15:23, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there's not just one; another Japanese one is hiding a ways down the page under "other uses". I can actually see a case for deprioritizing the Korean names, as 南山 is no longer the usual way to write it in Korean (rather, than hangul version is). The Japanese ones, by contrast, are, I believe, still typically written in kanji. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 14:32, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Disambiguation pages are not articles and therefore WP:UE does not apply. They are navigational aid, similar to redirects. Recently, we had another AFD discussion for a Chinese-character disambiguaiton page at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/松山 in January 2013 and kept the disambiguation page. --Kusunose 04:15, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question... since this is being repeated as if it were a mantra... I have to ask: Is there a policy or guideline that actually says that WP:UE only applies to articles (and not to disambiguation pages)? Blueboar (talk) 12:16, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the page title at WP:UE: "Wikipedia:Article titles". Is there a policy or guidelines that actually says to apply it also to non-article pages (such as disambiguation pages or redirects, such as {{R from alternative language}} redirects)? I hope not. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:55, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - WP:NCDAB says that disambiguation pages should conform to naming conventions. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:01, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NCDAB covers "Naming the specific topic articles" (that is, naming the articles that are linked from the disambiguation page), not the naming of disambiguation pages themselves. That's covered by WP:DABNAME, which does not try to conform non-article disambiguation to article title conventions. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:05, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, you're right. WP:DABNAME would only seem to advocate pages like this as a last resort. And USS Nanshan (AG-3) doesn't belong, as that would not be rendered "南山"! --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:22, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Right. And there is no other resort here, since no English title covers the ambiguity being disambiguated. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:40, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes there is. We could redirect to Nanshan, which could be expanded to include the alternatives shown here. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:44, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, there's not. Sure could redirect any ambiguous title to any disambiguation page, which could be expanded to include the alternatives there, but we don't do that because it doesn't serve the reader and instead provides a disservice to the reader. Nanzan and Namsan (Chagang) are not ambiguous with "Nanshan" (no mention of "Nanshan" on those pages) but are ambiguous with "南山". -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:16, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DPAGE could be read to advocate this: "A single disambiguation page may be used to disambiguate a number of similar terms." --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:23, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"May" is not "should", so there's permitting, but not advocating. In the case of CKJV titles, the normal practice is to use separate disambiguation pages for the various transliterations and one for the CKJV title; those best serve the readers reaching them by search for those titles. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:35, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Considering your solution to "Li", I'm surprised you didn't nominate this for renaming to literally meaning "south mountain" -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 08:39, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep since there is no one target for 南山 as a {{R from alternative language}}. Clean up as needed; no AFD required for clean up. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:55, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- As 南山 is Chinese the obvious target is the one with the Chinese place names, Nanshan. But readers ending up at Nanshan who really need Namsan can use the link to that page provided. That's how disambiguation works.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 21:32, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  南山 is written with characters originating with the Chinese character set. It is a "word" in Chinese, in Korean, and in Japanese. Readers who reach the disambiguation page 南山 can use the links on this page; that's also how disambiguation works. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:51, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm a bit concerned that there are many words with multiple meanings in many different languages, which could lead to a huge number of such disambiguation pages. Has this been addressed?--Wikimedes (talk) 22:05, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  It is typically addressed by creating the disambiguation pages as ambiguity is identified. With even the Latin alphabet, there are many words with multiple meanings in many different languages, which has lead to a huge number of disambiguation pages; the huge number of such pages is the solution, not a problem. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:51, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a useful navigation aid. Overlapping with differently-titled disambiguation pages is not a problem. —Xezbeth (talk) 14:38, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Keep As an aid to non-native speakers. ~~WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary.~~ (Oddly enough, there's no section on translation dictionaries at the linked guideline page, though the Minor differences section does say that Wikipedia uses English and Wiktionary allows all languages.)--Wikimedes (talk) 17:49, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but did you even bother to look at the entries listed in the page before voting? They're all place names, not dictionary definitions. In fact, Wiktionary has no entry for 南山. -Zanhe (talk) 18:35, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The English language version of Wiktionary doesn't (not surprising since 南山 isn't an English word... but it looks like the Chinese language version of Wiktionary does. Blueboar (talk) 20:21, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That only shows your inexperience with Wiktionary. The English version of Wiktionary is full of foreign words along with their English meanings. Just try looking up 南 and 山 separately. And the Chinese Wiktionary entry is empty with no definitions. -Zanhe (talk) 20:29, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I had looked at the entries, why would you assume otherwise? As I see it, the page translates 南山 into several possible English language equivalents. You may have noticed that I mentioned "translation dictionary", in this case Chinese/Korean/Japanese --> English.--Wikimedes (talk) 21:13, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I made the assumption (and I apologize if it was wrong) because this page does not meet any criterion of WP:NOT#DICTIONARY. However, I disagree with your view that this page is a translation dictionary. A translation dictionary would simply say "南山 means Southern Mountain(s) in Chinese, Japanese, and Korean", without listing the various places that share the name. -Zanhe (talk) 22:59, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It turns out the Wikipedia does have a limited function as a translation dictionary. Guidelines for usage of redirects as a navigation aid to speakers of other languages are outlined at Template:R from alternative language and WP:FORRED (both mentioned already by others). These guidelines seem reasonable and well thought out and disambiguation pages are a natural extension.
JHunterJ has said that even a large number of such disambiguation pages would not be a burden on Wikipedia, and this particular page is certainly not interfering with anything as there are still disambiguation pages at Nansan and Namsan.
The use of characters as disambiguation pages was discussed pretty well in January at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/松山.
This page is not the sort of “only a non-Roman script can be used to disambiguate an article title on the English Wikipedia” nonsense going on at WP:Article titles, Li (surname), et. al.Wikimedes (talk) 19:12, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: WP:POINTy nomination; nominator is currently in a deep and controversial discussion at WP:UE and other places regarding a similar issue. As for why this page should be keeped, I would like to give an example of how important non-English search terms might be on the English Wikipedia. Following the days immediately after Roh Moo-hyun's death, the 노무현 redirect got more than 1000 hits. Non-native English speakers may use foreign scripts to search for things, and I think don't fix what ain't broke applies here. We have many non-English redirects like these, and these redirects don't seem to be hurting anybody so far, and do have their beneficial uses (from what I'm aware of, WP:UE does not dictate what can and can't be done with redirects). Now, in the case of 南山, what do we redirect to? Redirecting to Nanshan would clearly neglect Japan and be biased towards China; redirecting to Nanzan would give a similar problem. Is the answer to this really to delete this page? Or, should it be to not fix what isn't broken? The English Wikipedia does not have a sole audience of native English speakers: as the largest Wikipedia project, many non-native English speakers also use this project, and cases such as 노무현 and 南山 are beneficial in that it helps people who use these search terms. Keep in mind that English is the global language, and if a native Japanese speaker can't find what he is searching for on the Japanese Wikipedia, he might go looking for it on the English Wikipedia next (but may not know the proper things to search for). -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 17:41, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:FORRED and the line of reasoning in other !votes. And I suggest a total moratorium on any AFDs or PRODs unless there is centralised discussion somewhere to rid these dab pages. GotR ^Talk 02:41, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That's only an essay, not policy, but it supports making it into a redirect as this satisfies the first criteria – this is an original/official name. As it's the name of a few places it should be a redirect to a disambiguation page, one of which already exists.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 11:13, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, more than one disambiguation page exists for which a redirect named "南山" would be appropriate. (so this again leads to the problem of needing a disambiguation page called "南山" to lead to the multiple disambiguation pages for the various transcriptions of "南山" into latin characters (and other articles that don't appear on disambiguation pages, because for those transcriptions there aren't enough articles to create a disambiguation page for them)) -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 08:48, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP arguments aside, the only way anyone would find is (and there could be more possibilities, but my humble cognitive capacities only caught two of them): 1. A native Chinese speaker finding it by mistake when looking it up. 2. A native English speaker genuinely interested in the meaning. We need not concern ourselves with the former case. For the latter, they other resources to figure it out. WP is not made for that. Cheers, Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 06:30, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We concern ourselves with the former case as a matter of course too, through {{R from alternative language}}. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:47, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"WP is not made for that." - and this is where you are wrong; Wikipedia caters to more than one type of usage. People use Wikipedia in different ways, for different purposes. How you use Wikipedia might be different to how I use it. There are no strict rules that dictate how you must use Wikipedia, and I know of certain people (no names mentioned) who admit to using Wikipedia as a masturbatory aid. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 03:37, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These are good arguments, no doubt, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. When was the last time you flipped through an encyclopedia, reached Z, and then started with Chinese characters? English-only speakers of English Wikipedia should be able to read the English titles of all English articles (including non-English names/words if they are in common usage in the English-speaking world a la Søren Kierkegaard). WP:UE is a good thing to consult in these situations.

Cheers, Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 01:53, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding flipping through an encyclopedia to Z and finding moonrunes, this brings us back to Wikipedia not being a paper reference. Britannica and Encarta don't do this due to their own constraints, and we don't have these constraints. Yes, a large number of our readers are native English speakers, however that does not mean that there will never be exceptions. If I were a Japanese person with limited English ability, and for some reason wanted to consult an English text for information regarding 小泉純一郎, but wasn't really sure on how to properly romanize his name or spell his name in the English language, I would type in "小泉純一郎" and pray that it would take me to the place that I want to end up at (Junichiro Koizumi). This is how non-English redirects can help these people, who are neither the majority of our readers (i.e. native/fluent English speakers), nor readers that do not exist (because they definitely do exist). Now, in the case of 南山, we can potentially have Chinese speakers who want to research Nanshan but don't know how to properly write it in English, or Japanese speakers who want to look up Nanzan. This is where we get an ambigious situation, and this is why we need a disambiguation page, that covers both Nanshan and Nanzan, which are written exactly identically in Chinese and Japanese. The only people who would ever end up at a place like 南山 would be someone who actively searches for it, such as the examples that I have mentioned earlier; this wouldn't concern native English speakers who cannot understand the title, because we wouldn't have such people looking up such a keyword. We don't link to disambiguation pages in articles (and in cases where links do go there, they should be fixed up by other editors). Even if they somehow accidentally end up at the page by some kind of witchcraft, they would either one be uninterested in the topic, and leave, or two read the description in the lead sentence of the page. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 07:02, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per 2011 AfD, and {{R from alternate language}} ; though I still don't see why non-English is used in Article titles as part of the base names for Germanic European articles (ß , ð , þ are not accented English letters, they are non-English letters, and if they're acceptable, I don't see why this isn't; as this isn't even an article, it's a dab page. And we're adding Unicode graphics characters, LEET-speak and ASCII art to music article names right now.) -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 08:16, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is common to use redirects from non-English names, for example København, 北京, 東京 or 서울. In this case, we don't know whether the person is looking for "Nanzan" (e.g. Nanzan University), "Minamiyama" (e.g. ja:南山 (名古屋市)), "Namsan" (e.g. Namsan (Chagang)), "Nanshan" (e.g. Nanshan District, Shenzhen) or "Nam Sơn" (e.g. vi:Nam Sơn, Sóc Sơn), so the only solution is to keep the Chinese characters in the title. --Stefan2 (talk) 09:35, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly- these are just that: redirects. What we can do is have the Chinese title redirect to an English disambiguation page- that would be analogous to your examples. It's not exactly the first time we have a Chinese title refer to multiple things.

Cheers, Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 22:33, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How would you determine whether the redirect target should be "Minamiyama", "Nanzan", "Nanshan", "Namsan" or "Nam Sơn", when you don't know which of the transcriptions the user is looking for? --Stefan2 (talk) 22:37, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would vote for "Southern Mountain (East Asia)," or the like. In the lead, explain the different ways this can be understood.

Cheers, Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 01:44, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good solution.--Wikimedes (talk) 15:43, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That would be an WP:Incomplete disambiguation. If it were needed (and it's not, the 南山 is perfectly fine for a CKJV disambiguation page), it would be simply Southern Mountain. And this is not a vote. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:44, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a need to change the page (nor to change my !vote again), but in case there is a need there are other solutions, such as some variation of Aua's suggestion, looking up the name in the native language and following the language link to the English article, or searching in the English WP and finding the native name that appears in the first line of an article (would names in an info box show up?).--Wikimedes (talk) 02:06, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:AT and WP:UE both apply to articles. The page being discussed here is not an article. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 14:58, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious, but how does your reading of WP:UE support using this name?

"Names not originally in a Latin alphabet, as with Greek, Chinese or Russian, must be transliterated into characters generally intelligible to literate speakers of English."

Users of English Wikipedia shouldn't, all of sudden, find themselves on a page whose title they cannot read. I am confused how is that even an issue. If there are multiple meanings, then disambiguate.

Let's imagine for a second that we go ahead and leave it there- before you know it, people will start switching place names into their native tongues/alphabet and WP will be rendered useless (reductio ad absurdum? Maybe, but I cannot be the only one who sees this). Keep English Wikipedia..well..english.

Cheers, Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 22:29, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dab pages are not articles. They are non-article pages that are located in article namespace, just like how redirects are non-article pages located in article namespace. Their purpose is for navigation, not for education. Hence, it can be argued that WP:AT does not apply to the case at hand. There is also currently discussion at WP:AT as to whether the contents of disambiguating parentheses counts as part of the article title, e.g. "Article title (brief disambiguator)", however this isn't relevant to our current AfD discussion. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 07:10, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That strikes me as WP:LETTER, but I'll entertain that thought for a second. Under WP:DABNAME, you have:

English spelling is preferred to that of non-English languages.

Moreover, under DABNAME, you have See also: Wikipedia:Article titles. Take that as you will.

Cheers, Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 16:06, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That would be "take is as a "See also", not directly relevant." Yes, English spelling is preferred. When English spelling is not possible (as in this case, where the topics do not share a single English spelling), we fall back to the non-English spelling, since the preferred spelling is impossible. Unless you are suggesting the English title Nánshān, Minamiyama, Nanzan, or Namsan or Chinese characters read as Nánshān, Minamiyama, Nanzan, or Namsan or somesuch clunky approach. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:44, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

...or Southern Mountain.

Cheers, Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 20:02, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, even the clunky approach is infinitely more preferable for me personally. A title I, and 95-99% of en.WP users, can understand is better than 南山.

Cheers, Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 20:10, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

南山, as the official name of the many places, is at least useful to 1-5% of en WP users. A chunky title like Chinese characters read as Nánshān, Minamiyama, Nanzan, or Namsan is pretty much useless to anybody. -Zanhe (talk) 20:39, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation pages aren't written for those who won't reach them. In the case of 南山, why would you or 95-99% of the en.WP users who can't understand it even reach it? No, the readers who would reach it are the 1%-5% who can understand it, and the page is written to disambiguate their ambiguous title. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:07, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Southern Mountain" falls afoul of the disambiguation page guidelines. Since none of the pages would be "Southern Mountain (xyz)" form -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 05:30, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, "Southern Mountain may refer to: <this list>" isn't true, so that's a bad name for the dab page. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:07, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like that to actually be applied to Western European languages, where it is clearly not the case, when we have the majority of English language reliable sources spell and style it one way, and our articles insist on using the non-English native forms that even use non-English letters (such as eszett, eth, or thorn, which aren't even English letters modified by accents, they are purely non-English letters) If we don't bother applying that rule to Western Europe, I see no reason to not have disambiguation pages with titles that are not typable, since they are disambiguating the term that is not typable either, so are functioning in the correct manner, unlike all these eth/thorn/eszett articles which clearly have English-lettered transcriptions that could be used but don't, which are articles and not disambiguation pages. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 05:30, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how WP:AT can actually be applicable to dab pages. WP:AT goes into lengthy discussions on exactly how a subject matter would determine the article name. Dab pages do not even have individual subjects. They function only to direct readers to other articles. If anything, on the contrary, trying to use WP:AT as a reason to delete this and other similar dab pages is what runs afoul of WP:LETTER. The common thread in WP:AT is to use the common recognisable name of the subject of the article. That's simply not applicable to dab pages. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:50, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

HongQiGong: oops! I totally misread your original !vote as you using AT and UE to defend keeping this DAB. My apologies. I missed the "not" part. That said, I still think we shouldn't have a page whose title cannot be read by the overwhelming majority of en.Wikipedia users.

Cheers, Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 06:08, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point of not being able to read it, but deleting these pages does a tremendous disservice to those who can read it. Even if you cannot read the characters in the title, you can still read the content of the page. While the deletion of this and similar pages would stop leading readers to the correct articles who happen to come to English WP via those Chinese characters. The latter, to me, is a worse scenario than the former. I also understand your fear that this is a slippery slope, but to the best of my knowledge, nobody in this particular discussion is proposing to stop using common English names as article titles. There might be other discussions going on elsewhere about this, but I have not been involved in them. The scope of this discussion as far as I'm concerned is the usage of Chinese characters in dab page titles. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:46, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You and JHunter make really strong points, and had this been any other discussion, I would have conceded and changed my !vote. In this case though, my knee-jerk, gut reaction is to not vote to allow a precedent. Foreign language redirects I can understand, but this strikes me as being on a whole new level. I'd much rather see it deleted than to allow it to go forward. If you want to look up something in Chinese, you can go to the relevant Wikipedia. If you search in Chinese, I think you should get Chinese back. We are catering to English speakers, and having this page WILL benefit 1-5% who speak Chinese, but will confuse the 95-99% who don't. That risk is too much, especially when we are catering to English-speakers first and foremost. Heck, even Google thinks so- try to look up "南山," and all you'll get is Chinese.

I realize I am being somewhat inflexible, and for that, I apologize. Cheers, Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 02:11, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see this as no different from a redirect. What is a disambiguation page, but a redirect with multiple destinations? (also why there's been pushes for a DfD or expanding RfD to handle disambiguation pages) And if I come across something on the net, but the term is in Korean/Japanese/Chinese (and not the entire page is, someone might type something in their home language while commenting on a thread on a blog, but mix it with English), and pop it into the searchbox, and the topic is originally East Asian, I expect that Wikipedia should return the proper article for it. The same reason that original language redirects exist. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 08:05, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few problems with your rationale. Firstly, these dab pages are a natural extension of Chinese-character redirects, because there are multiple articles that the Chinese terms can redirect to. Secondly, you ignore the fact that most of the world's population have at least a rudimentary understanding of a second language, with English being a very common second language. It is entirely possible that if a user looks up a Chinese term, he may be interested in reading an English article. Thirdly, there is nothing confusing or risky about this dab page. It is written in English, and explains what it translates to, and what it may refer to. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:51, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, there's no precedent being set here. This page follows the fine precedent set by the pages in Category:Disambiguation pages with Chinese character titles. -- JHunterJ

(RI)Note to admin: there is an extremely relevant discussion at WP:AT. I suggest holding off doing anything until some solution emerges there that we probably adapt to this situation. For full disclosure, I already !voted above. Cheers, Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 06:41, 14 July 2013 (UTC) (talk) 18:31, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note to the closing admin: WP:AT doesn't apply to non-article disambiguation page titles. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:09, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

JHunterJ, the discussion there is more concerned with DAB than articles.

Cheers, Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 16:25, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, then the discussion is misplaced, and will still have no bearing on disambiguation page titles. Cheers, JHunterJ (talk) 19:16, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, since it's an useful and straightforward disambiguation to navigate through these articles. --Cold Season (talk) 16:57, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to an English title, please. NintendoFan (Talk, Contribs) 21:03, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Which title, please? If you'll read the discussion above, you'll find that there isn't an appropriate English title. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:44, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not alphabetizable, not English, not an encyclopedic topic. Carrite (talk) 15:47, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please re-read WP:FORRED and WP:D. Disambiguation pages are not topic articles, and enabling navigation from non-alphabetizeable non-English titles is good. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:59, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A good time to revive the proposals for a Disambiguations for deletion page, since these aren't articles, but appear at AfD... -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 08:07, 17 July 2013 (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:45, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bangerter machine gun

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

Another article based entirely on a patent, with the usual misrepresentation from this group of accounts. The patent is a WP:PRIMARY source as far as WP:GNG is concerned. It's not even been read properly, because the number of barrels proposed there was 15 not 12. As usual for patents, the caliber of the ammo is not given therein (because this would limit patent applicability for what are otherwise fairly trivial adaptations.) It should be noted Friedrich Bangerter was actually an US citizen, so the caliber of this would be unlikely to be one used in Germany, as claimed in this article (7.92 mm Mauser). The group of sock-puppet accounts to which the creator of this one belongs has a history of inventing details like this from his own imagination, usually based on deducing the nationality of the inventor from his name, instead of even bothering to read the first paragraph of the patent, where the designer's citizenship and residence is stated. Now, searching for independent sources for this gun, there is a mention of a machine gun by Bangerter in a Machinery magazine from 1911, noting a demonstration given in Stapleton, Staten Island. But that was perhaps a different gun, for this one was patented much later (patent applied for in 1918, granted 1922). I don't know if that alone justifies a Wikipedia article, but it should probably be for a different gun. This stub needs WP:TNT in the best of circumstances. Someone not using his real name (talk) 22:08, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. Someone not using his real name (talk) 22:10, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I found this newspaper clipping from 1910, which is hardly believable (1 million rounds per minute rate of fire) for some Bangerter design. It seems reliable sources are rather difficult to find for anything related to him. I should also note that M1922 Bangerter machine gun was already deleted, and it appears it was substantially the same article [1], perhaps a bit less wrong. Someone not using his real name (talk) 22:17, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. For reasons stated above. It seems as if someone found some obscure firearms patent book somewhere and uploaded every gun patent in it to Wikipedia. --RAF910 (talk) 22:55, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of notability. It is clear that Mr Bangerter was active in making claims to have invented weapons with remarkable qualities. I have found another article in the NY Times; though I cannot access it as it is subscription only, it is clear from the headline that the claim was that it could fire 1 million rounds an hour (not a minute this time) without using powder at a cost of less than $20. I hazard a guess that it may have been using compressed air as a a propellant. Intriguingly, he is described as Swiss (presumably he became a US citizen later). The patent registries are littered with wild and wonderful proposals that were never practicable (the more eccentric the idea, the less likely that anyone else would have come up with it). We need evidence that any of these things actually worked as claimed. A single prototype could be notable in certain circumstances but we are nowhere near that at present. --AJHingston (talk) 23:17, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:11, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All articles from 1910 are apparently from the same source: the demo in Stapleton Staten Island. The NYT article reports that "The reporters saw the gun shoot, but were not permitted to see that part of the gun out of which the little steel bullets came with such rapidity." The description in the article does not match the patent: the bullets were poured into the gun from a bucket, and "the gun "uses neither powder nor compressed air and ... fires bullets that do not require shells". 'DGG (at NYPL) (talk) 20:48, 8 July 2013 (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 Mind Blowin'. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:47, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Roll 'Em Up

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

Non-notable song. No evidence of charting, awards or in depth coverage in independent sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:08, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mind Blowin'. Plausible search term but non-notable song as all mentions appear to be trivial (e.g., [2][3][4][5]). Gong show 02:18, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:04, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NSONGS. STATic message me! 04:31, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mind Blowin'. Not enough here at present for a standalone article but clearly suitable as a redirect. There is some coverage that could be used to either expand/source this article or the article on the album regarding the song's marijuana reference and some details about the video: SPIN, Vibe, Billboard, USA Today, Boston Herald. --Michig (talk) 06:16, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 23:59, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bishop Challoner Catholic Secondary School

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

The article has no 3rd party sources, and according to WP:Source and WP:THIRDPARTY 3rd party sources are key. Personally I worked on this article as a much unexperienced editor, and was not aware of such policies. For this reason, I request this article be deleted. W.D. (talk) 20:47, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:16, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:03, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:03, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The notability guideline requires that significant coverage third party sources exists - it doesn't necessarily have to be referenced in the article (although that would of course be preferable). A quick Google News and Google Books search for "Bishop Challoner Basingstoke" shows that the school certainly has some coverage in third party reliable sources; I'm reasonably confident more significant coverage could be found with the aid of a little research. WaggersTALK 14:20, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is established practice that we keep all verifiable articles on high schools. For those who think the GNG covers all cases despite the clear statement that it does not, this is harmonized by saying that sufficient investigation always shows that sufficient sources are available. IMO, the practical reason for this compromise was to avoid the thousands of afds, all hinging on the exact interpretation of what was significant coverage, a question that in most such debates before we accepted the compromise could equally well be interpreted in either direction, with results that were approximately random. (its even trickier with elementary schools, and the other side of the compromise was accepted that those should normally be merged into the locality.)'DGG (at NYPL) (talk) 20:55, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG and as further documented at WP:OUTCOMES#SCHOOLS. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:51, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - AfD is not for cleanup; please read WP:BEFORE. Bearian (talk) 21:22, 11 July 2013 (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. postdlf (talk) 04:57, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas Karpen

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

Per WP:BLPCRIME. Without the allegations of illegality, this article would be empty. TransporterMan (TALK) 20:19, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: - Per WP:BLPCRIME. Can be recreated if charges are laid resulting in comviction or noteworthy trial. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:34, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. At this point, these are only unsubstantiated allegations with little coverage in reliable sources. If there turns out to be a notable crime, it's possible that the article could be recreated. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:04, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Needs something to be proven before the article is re-created.--Peter cohen (talk) 03:06, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is waiting for a third party arbiter on the dispute resolution board as Roscelese has made removed several of the sources and reverted to her unilateral edits repeatedly without seeking consensus. Therefore it's impossible to make an unbiased decision about the article based on the current version. The sources she removed include The Dallas Morning News, The Washington Times, The National Review, and The New American. Frankly, I'm surprised that she is voting to delete an article that she knows is awaiting a third party review on the dispute resolution board.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#douglas_karpen

Lordvolton (talk) 08:28, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- You are vastly overinflating the importance of a discussion that you began because you wouldn't accept our RS policy and that is unlikely to be taken seriously by DRN. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:30, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- - Roscelese, If you would have followed the Wikipedia guidelines regarding dispute resolution there wouldn't be an issue. I've posted those guidelines on your talk page. Rather than seeking a common ground you made unilateral edits without seeking consensus. And then you repeatedly reverted edits that attempted to address your concerns regarding sources (see edit history of the Douglas Karpen page). I see that you're also lobbying for the deletion of the Rachel's Vineyard page that deals with a similar topic (abortion). As I've previously stated, Wikipedia is a not a platform to promote your personal ideology.Lordvolton (talk) 17:30, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLPCRIME. Take away the not yet proven allegations and hype from unreliable sources like lifenews.com and Operation Rescue, and there is nothing left. A search for substantial coverage only brings up mentions of a 1991 shooting. • Gene93k (talk) 13:08, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not true. I've provided multiple reputable sources that were reverted by Roscelese. Please review my edits in the history of the article.Lordvolton (talk) 17:33, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the reverted content before I posted. Roscelese reverted opinion pieces, activist sources, and sources that only repeat that Karpen is under investigation. This is not just a BIO1E, this is a biography of one investigation. Again, there is no substantial coverage to support a viable biography. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLPCRIME. This will be a POV magnet and a BLP nightmare. Wait until sufficient notability can be demonstrated beyond BLP1E. Gamaliel (talk) 22:01, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLPCRIME, I looked at the sources Lordvolton added, including the National Review (probably the most reputable of the ones added) and they were essentially primary sources, interviews with clinic staffers who worked with Karpen in the context of discussing the criminal allegations. Karpen is still only known for being accused and not yet convicted of any crime, so those sources do not solve the WP:BLPCRIME problem. Zad68 00:10, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLPCRIME and per User:Gamaliel - Alison ^❤ 08:11, 12 July 2013 (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. postdlf (talk) 04:57, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pamela Martin Duarte

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

Subject has appeared on a particular reality show and has since hired some sort of PR firm to edit on her behalf. The article was much worse than it is now, but now the only source on the page is to a couple of passing mentions of the subject, in particular her squabble with co-stars and someone who posted a scathing review of the show. As is evident from the log, I've also sent the pages on two other members of the cast for AFD for similar reasons, but these all appear to be differing paid editing firms at work here. —Ryulong (琉竜) 19:50, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, only a single spurious claim to notability. Fails WP:GNG Murry1975 (talk) 19:59, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, coverage is not significant. JoeSperrazza (talk) 20:26, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --John (talk) 21:39, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not seem to meet WP:ENT --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:02, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the most appropriate program in which she's a cast member. 76.248.144.216 (talk) 00:27, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, definitely not significant coverage. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 17:24, 11 July 2013 (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. postdlf (talk) 04:56, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AMG Ambitious Music Group

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

no indication of notability. Created by editor with a WP:conflict of interest. No independent WP:reliable sources. Very few google hits. noq (talk) 19:21, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Essentially nonexistent website. Swibe (talk) 19:25, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that the ___domain has only been registered with godaddy today. Website is nothing but a holding page from godaddy. noq (talk) 19:51, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Also seems nonsense to me... みんな空の下 (トーク)
Delete Non notable, no references and self promotion. (user who created the page is the same whose twitter is linked as the label's 'official' twitter) Probably some kid (judging by the grammar) decided to get more Twitter followers by pretending to run a label and create a fake page for it. 2Flows (talk) 20:53, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:57, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:57, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:57, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. No indication of notability, promotional vehicle by COI account. 76.248.144.216 (talk) 13:11, 9 July 2013 (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. postdlf (talk) 04:56, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bonnie Blossman

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

Article is a massive puff piece written by someone with a conflict of interest. The subject is a participant on a reality television program and her notability only extends from being on this program and other related programs.

She is an author but all of her books are self published (most of the references on the page are just links to Amazon or other book seller listings). She is also holds a PhD, but she does not meet the requirements of WP:ACADEMIC. —Ryulong (琉竜) 19:14, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable; footnote in TV show article. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:56, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable. – Recollected • 23:47, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability not found. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:29, 8 July 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Comment. Fails WP:PROF with a h-index of 2. I'm seeing some news coverage relating to conflicts between the cast of the TV show, but that's WP:BLP1E. Given the bizarre combination of interests the subject has, there may be coverage I've missed. -- 202.124.73.31 (talk) 06:56, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is some news coverage, but not enough for WP:GNG. -- 202.124.75.19 (talk) 00:26, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --John (talk) 13:02, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject is without a doubt an interesting person, but interesting and notable are different things, and I don't see much evidence of notability. Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:54, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
She is entitled to her own wikipedia page; she is a Author and is 'famous' within her show and a TV show reality star/Socialite. I'm sorry but if she isn't allowed her own wikipedia page then why is their a stupid/boring page on the name 'Candice' when it has no relevance to the name or origin? At least her page is interested and is visited. Samuelsparks96 17:01, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No one is entitled to anything on Wikipedia. Wikipedia has requirements on what could not be added and Ms. Blossman does not meet the requirements. All of the books she has authored are self-published. And her presence as a reality star/socialite is unimportant. Pointing out that what you deem as unimportant topics does not help your argument. Also, Candice is a disambiguation page pointing people to all persons named Candice.—Ryulong (琉竜) 05:33, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per failing WP:PROF and WP:GNG. -- 202.124.73.12 (talk) 10:32, 11 July 2013 (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) 06:53, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whitney Whatley

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

Article is a massive puff piece written by someone with a conflict of interest. The subject is a participant on a reality television program and her notability only extends from being on this program and other related programs. Much of the article is not sourced, or if it is sourced the citation does not mention the item in question. —Ryulong (琉竜) 19:11, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable; footnote in TV show article. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:55, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. – Recollected • 23:47, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 11:17, 14 July 2013 (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. postdlf (talk) 04:56, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Noon

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

I understand he's made 2 league appearances but apart from that hes being in non league. Is he notable enough? Telfordbuck (talk) 14:28, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Once notability has being attained it never goes away, any player to make a league appearance is automatically notable even if they ultimately don't make it and end up in the non league Seasider91 (talk) 14:49, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG. Just because they played for a notable team does not make them notable and worthy of a Wikipedia article. STATic message me! 18:15, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep apologises he never played for Manchester United or Barcelona 800+ times, but 2 league appearances for Coventry City are good enough in my opinion. Jonesy702 (talk) 21:17, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep he played two games in the The Football League, so is justified to have an article, Stew jones (talk) 21:43, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable athlete. SL93 (talk) 23:01, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL, needs improving to meet WP:GNG. I will have a crack tonight if I have time. Giant Snowman 09:23, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
comment I removed a personal attack from one of the comments above. 'DGG (at NYPL) (talk) 20:59, 8 July 2013 (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:27, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Nickerson

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

Not notable. One might say, "but he won a Pulitzer Prize!" However, this is a matter of GNG coverage: the subject was part of a team prize (on both occasions), which has only been awarded since 2000 in the area of "breaking news photography." Looking at that list of winners on WP indicates that the winners are not notable enough to have standalone WP articles. MSJapan (talk) 14:12, 7 July 2013 (UTC) MSJapan (talk) 14:12, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete an unremarkable local news photographer who hasn't received any decent coverage in any news, fails WP:GNG 14:19, 7 July 2013 (UTC)Seasider91 (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found only one reference on that particular article and that is not going to be enough to reach the notability guidelines. WisconsinBoyClevelandRocks228844 (talk) 19:54, 9 July 2013 (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. Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:35, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Top 3 Schools in Merton

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

Unsourced article about the top schools somewhere in a place called Merton. The article lacks context, looks like some of it was copy-pasted and may be original research. Fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE. - Mr X 13:50, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is a bunch of indiscriminate content and is WP:NONSENSE. Citrusbowler (talk) (contribs) (email me) 14:08, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This looks like something regurgitated from a local newspapers school league table, definatly falls well short of WP:GNG Seasider91 (talk) 14:16, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. No kind of context; how a speedy was declined is beyond me. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 17:08, 7 July 2013 (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. No prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:11, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ramineni Foundation Awards

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

The Award has no secondary reliable coverage except two entries from The Hindu but still it fails to assert why the award is in itself notable. The NGO Ramineni Foundation and its founder Ramineni Ayyanna Choudary are both non notable according to wikipedia standards and the Award currently does not asserts notability. The Legend of Zorro 01:37, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 13:12, 7 July 2013 (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:26, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kaichou-Kai

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

Non-notable three dojo cluster Peter Rehse (talk) 12:24, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 12:24, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is on a new martial art that is currently taught at only 4 schools. The only source is the art's home page and my search found no significant independent coverage. Papaursa (talk) 23:47, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete No independent coverage and nothing to show notability. Creating your own style and opening a school or two doesn't make one notable.Mdtemp (talk) 17:27, 15 July 2013 (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:26, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mu Sool Won

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

Non-notable recent creation - notability has not been established Peter Rehse (talk) 12:24, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 12:24, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An article about a new martial art that lacks independent sources. My search found a lot of Google hits, but nothing that looks like the significant independent coverage required by WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 23:52, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only sources in article are primary ones. Nothing to show this new style meets WP:MANOTE or WP:GNG. Mdtemp (talk) 17:26, 15 July 2013 (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:25, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hung Suen Wing Chun Kung Fu

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

Not notable and un-referenced (references point to something else). It also looks like a copyvio. I was going to delete all of the OR stuff but then there is nothing left.Peter Rehse (talk) 12:05, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 12:05, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found no significant coverage. Fails WP:N. SL93 (talk) 23:17, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced article with no indications of notability. Much of the article is spent explaining where the name of this relatively new style came from, but there's no indication of any linkage of this style with its historical namesake. My search found no significant coverage of this wing chun variant. Papaursa (talk) 00:00, 8 July 2013 (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. This is not the way to challenge the result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Microsoft Tunisia Scandal which was closed as keep only three days ago. I will explain to the nominator later today how he should proceed. JohnCD (talk) 17:03, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Microsoft Tunisia Scandal

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

In an effort to review articles which are published online relating to the Microsoft brand, we have found this article and would request that it is removed from Wikipedia due to its substantial inaccuracy. The information contained in the article is incorrect, inaccurate and influences a negative perception of the Microsoft brand. I would like to emphasize that Microsoft provided earlier, clear explanations about unsupported allegations mentioned in the page, and keeping this page is harming Microsoft’s image without reflecting the complete story. As a Microsoft appointed representative could the owner of this article contact me directly so that we can discuss this matter further. MitchGWilliams (talk)

This was added to the log in the wrong place, without templates and was then added here with only the above text and no signature. I think I've fixed everything but apologies if I missed anything. Stalwart111 10:58, 7 July 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Speedy keep and close It was clear from the previous discussion initiated by the same nominator that this is a misplaced nomination: AfD is not for clean-up, nor for expressing someone's dislike of the content on a page. Which goes for corporations too. The question is only one of notability and as per views on the previous AfD the article has sufficient WP:RS coverage on that front. (That aside the nominator seems rather confused about the nature of Wikipedia: "the owner of the article"?) AllyD (talk) 11:35, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - nominator has an enormous COI, and the article itself passes pretty much all guidelines. MitchGWilliams, I strongly suggest you read Wikipedia guidelines if you intend to remain here. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:42, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn. Not going to waste anymore time, clearly there are more editors who believe unintelligible crap is better than nothing Jac16888 ^Talk 21:27, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kazakh clothing

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

Unsourced, badly translated to the point of being unintelligible ("If suits needed to be given to conviviality, it achieved special finishing"?) and reads more like an essay than an article Jac16888 ^Talk 09:59, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The subject is clearly encyclopaedic but I agree - the way it's written is badly translated and in some cases, unintentionally hilarious. ("The Kazakh girls also wore trousers, especially, when exploited.") This may be a case where total deletion and restarting from scratch is necessary. Mabalu (talk) 12:39, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep AFD is not cleanup and it is our policy to improve such weak first drafts rather than deleting them. The topic is notable, being covered in works such as Central Asia: A Global Studies Handbook and Encyclopedia of World Cultures. If we have pages for items of western clothing such as baseball cap, we can certainly spare a page for the clothing of an entire people. Warden (talk) 18:01, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"...if an article is so bad that it is harmful in its current state, then deleting now, and possibly recreating it later, remains an option". This article is so poor, so badly written that it has no postive aspects whatsoever. Cleanup would be very difficult, unlikely to happen anytime soon considering the massive backlog of similarly terrible articles we currently have, and it is almost a guarantee that anybody who was to want a decent article on the subject would be most likely to remove and replace the entire content - in fact I would consider it a strong possibility that an editor wanting to write about this subject would likely be put off from doing so by the already existing content--Jac16888 ^Talk 18:44, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In what way is the article "harming" you, the project, or someone else? I did some copyediting and added 3 books as references which have significant coverage of traditional Kazakh clothing. The article is still in considerable need of editing. A few remaining sentences which are difficult to understand because of the obvious limited English ability of the article creator could be removed. The subject is notable, so it is preferable to use the identified books and others available in libraries on national costumes to improve the article, rather than the encyclopedia having no coverage of the subject. We are not on deadline, and an article does not have to be perfect or even good to be in The Encyclopedia Anyone Can Edit as long as the subject is notable as shown by multiple reliable and independent sources with significant coverage, which has been demonstrated in this case. We need not run around deleting articles about notable subjects because it is too much trouble to open up the identified sources and edit the article into a better one, or to remove or move to the talk page sentences which need major work. Edison (talk) 20:21, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An article which cannot be understood by anybody without considerable effort is harmful to the project, it is as simple as that.--Jac16888 ^Talk 20:32, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well I got a lot out of the article without much effort. What does that say? Edison (talk) 21:22, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject is clearly notable. Deletion rationale is not grounded in policy. Like Colonel Warden, I'd like to remind that deletion is not for cleanup and that deletion policy requires us to keep articles that need mere improvement. Also, that the article "cannot be understood by anybody" is debatable: I am not a native English speaker, yet I understand most of the article quite well. The nominator would spend her/his time better by fixing it than by trying to delete it. -- cyclopia^speak! 20:57, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am one of a very few number of editors who does actually make an effort to improve the huge number of similarly badly translated articles - as a multilingual editor I would invite you to make an effort to to help out yourself before passing judgement on the ease at which such content can be fixed.--Jac16888 ^Talk 21:14, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have I ever said it was easy? I don't think so. I said it is not a reason to delete, and that such efforts are a better way to use your time than attempting to delete articles on notable topics. Thanks for the suggestions, anyway. -- cyclopia^speak! 21:24, 7 July 2013 (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) 16:06, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ramon Bruin

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

Artist who had his 15 minutes of fame on the internet last year. Fails the notability criteria for biographies. While an older version contained a slew of external links, these do not constitute "multiple published secondary sources which are [...] intellectually independent of each other" as they all seemed to copy-paste each other's content. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 10:51, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He does meet WP:ARTIST, but falls under WP:BLP1E. Citrusbowler (talk) (contribs) (email me) 16:04, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 17 June 2013 (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 · · 11:58, 23 June 2013 (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 · · 18:27, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisting comment: Sources were added during the nomination which may prove notability. Let us discuss them.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:16, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter (talk) 08:16, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Grudgingly agree that this is more of a single-event type of thing. With that said, the HuffPost UK has a "ramon bruin" tag which shows 3 articles months apart from each other. II | (t - c) 08:33, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Concur with Citrusbowler, merely notable for a single event. Finnegas (talk) 15:59, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7. Bbb23 (talk) 13:13, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

B. Singh

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

No mention of notability. Fails WP:GNG Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 08:10, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It would have been simpler to tag this for speedy deletion under A7. II | (t - c) 08:38, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) czar · · 20:56, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yitzchak Meir Helfgot

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

Article appears to be an advertisement. No clear notability established in the article or references which are not secondary sources. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:16, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Uncertain This is just a list of his work, not an advertisement. Uncertain, because there is no information present about notability. DGG ( talk ) 19:13, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Uncertain His name pops on Google enough for me to believe that he's at least notable in his field. I can't find a news article, but I could also be using the wrong title. I say keep the page, keep the clean up language, and revisit in a year. RyanGrant (talk) 04:42, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Completed incomplete nom. — Train2104 (talk • contribs) 03:51, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I haven't even checked the article yet for its writing style; but that is irrelevant, as it is the subject's notability that matters. I am quite certain that Helfgot is very notable in his field; what remains to be seen is how much general notability that confers on him. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 04:53, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- See for example this article from Haaretz (Translation of the first sentence: "Yitzchak Meir Helfgot is one of the greatest chazzanim in the world today.") הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 05:02, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Added an NPR source which speaks favorably about him. II | (t - c) 08:48, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 00:39, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 00:39, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article isn't much more than a stub, but the coverage by NPR, Haaretz, The New York Times and this piece in Tablet are enough to convince me that he meets the Wikipedia notability standard. I don't know that I'd be willing to pay as much as $180 to attend a selichot service, but I'd keep the article. The fact that so many people will show up at midnight and pay up to $180 for tickets to hear him is rather notable in and of itself. Alansohn (talk) 02:57, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Alansohn. Marokwitz (talk) 07:59, 8 July 2013 (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:16, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Robert P. Chappell

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

No clear notability . One book, in 174 libraries, which is low for a book on the subject. All the references to it are local, and therefore not discriminating.

There is nothing else that might imply importance. DGG ( talk ) 23:16, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep My understanding (based on seeing this in a Reuters article and accompanying Reuters video interview, in addition to other, if local, sources) is that child identity theft is a recent phenomenon but is on the increase. Chappell may well be one of the very few national experts in the field -- but the field itself is newly developing, so it's hard to get a handle on independent sources to support this. That may be the reason for the low numbers to date re: volumes in libraries, but the book has only been out for several months, less than half a year. There are, in fact, very few references of any kind on this subject apart from his book (which, apparently, is one reason he wrote it). That doesn't mean it isn't a significant development, however, or that his expertise in this area is insignificant, either. Law enforcement statistics in the citations included say otherwise.Mrtraska (talk) 00:12, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If it's the only book on a recent phenomenon that ought to be noticed, but neither the phenomenon or the book has yet gotten much attention, I think it amounts to "not yet notable". No prejudice against resubmission when his work becomes notable, but until it does, this is promotion. DGG ( talk ) 05:21, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find any coverage that indicates notability, and the article itself is stuffed full of minor awards and career details, but also has nothing that indicates notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:25, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:38, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even the headlines of some of the references take pains to specify that the subject's relevance is only local, so until the subject reaches a wider notoriety, it seems to me that he is less than notable. j notabene (talk) 06:32, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While having a few law enforcement and military awards is commendable, it's not enough to meet our notability criteria. As has already been mentioned, the book doesn't address the notability issue either. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 06:16, 14 July 2013 (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:09, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Xtreme Ice Skating

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

Multiple problems not fixed since at least a year. Does not meet WP:GNG. There is clear WP:COI as the main contibutor is developing an "Xtreme Ice Skate: An ice-skate that is expected to replace hockey skates and figure skates as the main ice-skate used for the sport." Majority of accessible references fall under WP:SELFCITE. The article shows ignorance to language used in ice skating. Elements that could distinguish it from a cross between hockey and figure skating are not explained. People doing "Xtreme ice skating" appear to call it as "Freestyle ice skating" according to video sites which are the only evidence of some wider notability.

The article was previously deleted, see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xtreme Ice Skating Z-m-k (talk) 03:13, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's no notability. Corn cheese (talk) 18:05, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

July 8th, 2013. In reply to (talk) 18:05, 7 July 2013: Please be more specific about what you are claiming. I can not tell where you delineate each claim. Are you talking about technical language of the Xtreme Ice Skate? Or just the sport itself? Or both? Also, the difference between "Xtreme Ice Skating" and "Freestyle Ice Skating: will be explained (in a couple of days). The issues presented, can be resolved with further clarification from your end.

Also, user "Corn cheese," please see the following rule: "Notability is not temporary Shortcuts:

   WP:N#TEMP
   WP:NTEMP
   WP:NOTTEMPORARY

Notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage."

- - Notability has already been established by a previous moderator at the time this article was approved.

While notability itself is not temporary, from time to time, a reassessment of the evidence of notability or suitability of existing articles may be requested by any user via a deletion discussion, or new evidence may arise for articles previously deemed unsuitable. Thus, articles may be proposed for deletion or recreated months or even years after being earlier considered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dan Perceval (talk • contribs)

It is the responsibility of the editor to clearly demonstrate notability showing, significant coverage in multiple, reliable, 3rd party sources. This does not include official webpages, youtube, facebook, twitter, forums or other things that can be easily self-publshed. Additionally, while it is true that notability is not temporary, notability has to be established first! Ravendrop 01:03, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The "sport" (I use that term generously) is clearly not notable. Essentially all references calling it "Xtreme Ice Skating" are self-published. The page is also clearly an advertisement for the "creator's" business/webpage and their (not yet available?) skates, not to mention a serious WP:COI issue. The claim of this "sport" being invented in 2005 is also laughable, as these types of jumps, spins, etc. have been around for many years (i.e. figure skating, but also acrobatic skating/extreme skating, which is often seen in ice shows) and the only thing unique i the name/business which the author is trying to promote. Finally, as it has only 14 participants, according to this page, it has hardly reached the level of participation to even start to remotely be considered notable. Ravendrop 01:03, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

July 9th, 2013. In response to "Ravendrop": NOTABILITY: (http://www.xtremeiceskating.com/press_kit.htm) The sport was mentioned in IFS (International Figure Skating Magazine) and ISKATE Magazine (U.K. magazine), at which time the moderator approved notability of the sport and allowed the Wikipedia article to remain. For further notability aside from the magazines, there is an instructor in Argentina, Mr. Lombardi, who is currently teaching Xtreme Ice Skating. He is also now part of a ice-show and will be performing in a few weeks. All video tutorials are still being created by the founder (U.S.) and are serving participants worldwide. Registrants (14 participants) is not the mark of a sport since those participants have asked to be on the website. All other participants do not necessarily want to be listed on the website, and their privacy is dually respected. Lastly, a sport is a sport whether big or extremely small. The problem is we are debating what a sport actually is when the claim for deletion is of another topic entirely ("Notability is not temporary").

SPORT & DISCIPLINE (jumps, spins, etc..): Most of the jumps, spins, and turns were created by the founder and converted into a discipline (an exact science and establishment of organization, guidelines, tutorials, policies, and regulations), along with diagrams such as this one (http://www.xtremeiceskating.com/online_documents/Eagle_Footwork_diagram.pdf). http://www.xtremeiceskating.com/learn.htm (discipline and diagrams). http://www.xtremeiceskating.com/testing_video_rules.htm (guidelines).

There is a Board of Directors (http://www.xtremeiceskating.com/board.htm) which decides rules and regulations of each trick. Board members are a community of Xtreme Ice Skaters. There is even minutes to meetings of the Board of Directors, such as this one (http://xtremeiceskating.com/minutes/Minutes_January_2012.pdf).

MODERATOR C.O.I.: "Revendrop" is suggesting that "Xtreme Ice Skating" is not a sport, by clearly the level of detail, organization, and planning of the sport is clearly notable as shown above (which is only some of the the sport). Using the terms "laughable" while makes for lenient conversation, is a clearly a conflict of interest of speech, especially when "Notability is not temporary" rule has already been established and the moderator(s) are trying to by moderators seeking to reverse a clearly established rule ("Notability is not temporary").

XTREME ICE SKATES: The Xtreme Ice Skate IS finished. They are sold by the company "Harlick," which is a very well established and worldwide known figure skating manufacturer. If you do not believe they are being sold, then call Harlick yourself and ask them if they make "Xtreme Ice Skates," and that you'd like to inquire about ordering a pair. Their number can be found on their website at www.harlick.com

Regarding comment "(i.e. figure skating, but also acrobatic skating/extreme skating, which is often seen in ice shows): An ice-show doesn't qualify a type of skating as a sport, nor does it qualify a type of skating as unique. A SPORT is organization and discipline, as well as following. All of those qualifications have been met.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dan Perceval (talk • contribs)

Reply Yes there are a few very brief mentions, but WP:NOTABILITY requires significant coverage which a sentence or two in the magazines does not cover, nor does a single newspaper article in a local paper, especially as they are talking about a style/kind of skating that they clearly do identify solely with Xtreme Ice Skating (the brand you are trying to promote), but rather term Freestyle Skating (the term that the rest of the skating community seems to have more commonly adopted to cover your brand and similar types of skating). If anything, if an article about this type of skating is to be created, it should be under that name. My point about using "sport" in quotations is that what you are promoting, appears to me, not as a distinct sport, but rather more akin to a league. (I.e. Ice Hockey is a sport; the NHL or the KHL, etc. are the organizations that create the rules in which their leagues operate in the sport). The fact that you have given unique names to jumps/tricks doesn't create a new sport.

Finally, I do not see any evidence that any moderator has ever endorsed the page as being notable. I am guessing you may be referring to the WP:AfC procedure (though I can find no evidence this page went through that process), but even if an article is created and accepted there, it does not mean that the topic is notable and cannot be subject to a deletion review. In fact, no one person, moderator or otherwise, can unilaterally decide if any topic is notable enough. Wikipedia works to gain a community consensus and note that consensus, even on the notability of a topic, can change. In fact, the history of this page is deletion at a previous AfD and a subsequent deletion review which upheld and confirmed the deletion of the article. Note also that articles (other than those that go through the AfC process) are not reviewed before they are publicly posted, and therefore that an article has been up for any period of time does not confer notability either. You're reliance on Notability is not temporary is misguided. Myself and the nominator are arguing that Xtreme Ice Skating has never been notable, not that its notability has somehow expired. (See also Wikipedia:Existence ≠ Notability) Ravendrop 04:11, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Insufficient coverage to meet wikipedia's inclusion guildelines. -- Whpq (talk) 10:32, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply, first of all Dan, can you start signing your replies? I stand by my original claim to delete (I started the procedure). As for WP:GNG: lack of significant coverage, little reliability, sources do not provide deep coverage. In fact your "sport" is mentioned only in passing and based on your "updates." The source that provides the most coverage (ISKATE, July 2009, one-column) even admits that your tricks can be decomposed into basic figure skating moves and the flashy name is meant to attract people who would not "figure" skate on principle. WP:COI and WP:SELFCITE are clear of the 32 references, at least 26 are going to your website or YouTube channel. As for ignorance for the language used in ice skating, the tricks that you mention in the article are sequences of basic figure skating moves. The fact that you perform them on hockey skates does not warrant new names. Moreover, these are (again) usually sequences. If every sequence in figure skating had it's unique name we could write a whole specialized wiki. I will admit that some short sequences in figure skating do have widely known names but this is due to them being included in tests or because it is used in training a lot (8 Step Mohawk, Roll step, Walley step). For instance, you provided a link in this discussion to a "Eagle Footwork" in which: Eagle turn is a Mohawk turn or a small inside Spread eagle (figure skating) (small in the sense that it is not possible to maintain it for longer glides) depending on a skater's timing, Reverse Apolo Turn looks like a Mohawk turn with a hop, Moving Spin is a Mohawk turn+3 turn sequence, and T-Turn is Mohawk turn+Choctaw turn+cross step. I this article could be rewritten to talk about "Freestyle skating" (it would be a very unfortunate name, in my opinion, since it is also used in figure skating) is a also not clear to me since there is still no notability according to WP:GNG. The best one can do is to make a sub-section in Figure skating and/or Ice hockey, but it is not a discipline of it own, not yet.Z-m-k (talk) 10:25, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is a matter that needs to be cleared up: the original document that was deleted was *not* the same document as the one now being debated. It was completely different. The original document was an incomplete document, and could have been written with better context, and I believe that document was submitted accidentally before it was completely written. Obviously the document was deleted for reasons just stated. However, this does and should not establish precedent for deletion a second time. What is being debated is notability, not that that first document was deleted because it was improperly written and therefore that's "an even more reason to delete this revision." I wanted to make this point clear. --Dan Perceval (talk) 15:04, 12 July 2013 (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. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:11, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vickers Higson machine gun

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

I haven't heard of a "Vickers Higson machine gun" and this name was invented by a Wikipedia editor based on a patent, which is a WP:PRIMARY source, insufficient for WP:GNG purposes and with all its perils for WP:OR interpretation, which appears to be at work here. If a gun was ever produced based on this patent (for a two-barreled machine gun), it was probably called something else, because I can't find any sources to verify its manufacture. There is hardly any independent coverage of the patent itself; mere listing of this patent in a list together with hundreds of other patents in an extensive US gov work (5 volumes with thousands of pages in total) isn't convincing that this particular patent is notable enough for Wikipedia. Someone not using his real name (talk) 03:28, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. Someone not using his real name (talk) 03:30, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is not a notable firearm. Wikipedia and Wiki-mirrors appears to be the only sources of information for this gun. There is no information that even suggests that this gun ever existed. --RAF910 (talk) 20:15, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. coming up empty on all counts.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 14:29, 10 July 2013 (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 Alexander Weygers. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 00:01, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discopter

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

Non-notable invention. No evidence of in depth coverage in independent sources. Redirect to Alexander Weygers a possibility. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:36, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Alexander Weygers as a potential search term. After source searches, only finding passing mentions of this invention in reliable sources, at least in sources available online. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:47, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:21, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per NA1000. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:24, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Easy redirect per above and WP:CHEAP. Bearian (talk) 20:15, 11 July 2013 (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) 07:01, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redemption (2004 film)

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

I don't think this film meets the notability requirements for films because I can't find any coverage of the film. Obviously, I might have missed something because it's not easy to find sources for something called "Redemption" but I tried

Redemption+""Richard Antonio" (lead role) [6] found nothing
Redemption + "jose garofalo" (the director) "Jose+Garofalo"+redemption and all I got was this passing mention and indication that the film was screened once in Garofalo's hometown of Port St. Lucie, Florida

I can find no indication that the film was released in theaters. IMdb indicates a Portuguese title (for Brazilian cable TV) and a French one but Google also comes up empty when these titles are used in the searches. Pichpich (talk) 05:23, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There really isn't anything out there for this film. I see where the director has, in general, received some local coverage, but not enough for either him or the film to merit inclusion. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:10, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

French: (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) (Black as Hope, Garofalo)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:20, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I am unable to find significant coverage online for this film; appears to fall short of meeting WP:GNG or WP:NF. Gong show 20:05, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There is no significant coverage. Fails WP:NF. SL93 (talk) 22:55, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Achozen. (non-admin closure) czar · · 18:46, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Album (Achozen album)

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

This article was created 4 years ago and the album still has not been released, probably won't be released anytime soon. Koala15 (talk) 02:41, 30 June 2013 (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/2013 June 30. Snotbot t • c » 03:06, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Achozen. Should probably never have been a separate article, but much of the music described in the article has been released, in the soundtrack of the film. Achozen is a notable collaboration/project, and as this article describes pretty much the sum output of that collaboration we should keep the relevant content. --Michig (talk) 08:16, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:15, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge for the time being per Michig. The facts are significant but this is not the right way to present them at this time. LazyBastard Guy 20:56, 9 July 2013 (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. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:08, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BeeBole (software)

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

I found no coverage for this company. Fails WP:CORP. SL93 (talk) 00:41, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Though their product has a few positive user reviews on Google Apps, I am finding nothing in terms of reliable sources to indicate notability for this firm or their product. AllyD (talk) 05:28, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:13, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - references provided do not meet threshold of significant coverage - brief mention in two long lists of companies, and a user-editable developer's site. A search did not reveal significant RS coverage in English, though it is possible that there are foreign language sources. Created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 10:10, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to American Concrete Institute. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 00:03, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ACI 318 Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete

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

This doesn't seem to be notable by itself. SL93 (talk) 00:40, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to American Concrete Institute. This seems to be one of the institute's important roles, the exact name of the code is less important. BigJim707 (talk) 20:55, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:12, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to American Concrete Institute, which issued it. Too specific. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:14, 12 July 2013 (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. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:07, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jamshid Askar

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

This article doesn't adhere to guidelines for WP:CREATIVE. It has had a notability warning since November 2009. The content is largely outdated (the subject's blog appears no longer to exist, his family circumstances must have changed since 2010, etc. Apologies if I'm not doing this exactly correctly... it's my first time. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by J notabene (talk • contribs) 01:54, 7 July 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no indication of notability, more of a LinkedIn presentation. Being a staff member of a notable publication does warrant an individual article. --Soman (talk) 13:28, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No independent sourcing. It's only sourced by paper's he's worked for, and even those sources are more things he's written (primary source) rather than things written about him (secondary sources) p b p 22:32, 10 July 2013 (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. postdlf (talk) 04:58, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled fourth Daughtry Album

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

WP:TPHL: "If the name and track order of a future album are not yet known, the album is very likely to have its page deleted from Wikipedia." Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 02:56, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and this article is speculative and unreferenced. It's hammer time. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:03, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Violates WP:CRYSTAL, WP:NALBUMS and if you wanna count it WP:HAMMER. It is much too soon for the article, which is completely unsourced. STATic message me! 18:38, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above - no known album title, release date, or tracklist at this time; WP:CRYSTAL and WP:HAMMER apply. Gong show 20:08, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:HAMMER. Sergecross73 msg me 02:24, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:HAMMER Gbawden (talk) 13:44, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above: WP:STOPHAMMERTIME Ansh666 06:46, 9 July 2013 (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:06, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Healthy Paws Pet Insurance

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

Promotional article that fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Article has three references from sources that are not reliable and independent. External link to newspaper makes only passing mention. Google news search turns up little more. Logical Cowboy (talk) 02:36, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A past edit by the article creator has the summary "Company requested page text be empty until some additions are made" indicating WP:COI involvement. AllyD (talk) 06:26, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I did find a media mention regarding a publicity exercise among AON's affiliate firms, but essentially a passing mention. Nothing indicates WP:CORPDEPTH notability. AllyD (talk) 06:32, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is just spam, AFAICT. Barney the barney barney (talk) 09:37, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Below the article creators reaction from the articles talk page: Sander.v.Ginkel (talk) 09:41, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At one point I had a lot more information on this page which I did not realize someone had deleted. That information proved its notability, and satisfied an editor on March 31st - one editor had proposed it for deletion, another said of course it was notable. Of course, that was when I had a lot of content on this page that proved its notability. Please give me time to go back into my notes and restore that information before you make any decision. The Librarian at Terminus (talk)

This page should not be speedily deleted because... (your reason here) --The Librarian at Terminus (talk) 23:05, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Healthy Paws Pet Insurance is a notable company. I provided several links to Pet Insurance sites that acknowledge that it is one of the best insurance companies in the United States. There are similar companies on Wikipedia, for example Petplan USA.

My goal was to create a company page. I dealt very lightly with the services they offer just because I did not want it to be a promotional page, but rather an informational page.

Please reconsider this speedy deletion. The Librarian at Terminus (talk) 23:05, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete The evidence speaks for itself. scope_creep (talk) 02:09, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 8 July 2013 (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 by nominator; restoration of an earlier version mooted the deletion rationale. postdlf (talk) 15:56, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Communauté de communes du Dunois, Cher

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

No indication of notability. There is no article prose here, only a list of coats of arms of communes, and although (French-language) sources can be found for many of the coats of arms listed here individually, no reliable sources have been included to establish the notability of this communauté de communes. This page appears to have been translated from French Wikipedia. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 01:36, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep. The text of the article when nominated was effectively a duplicate of that of Armorial of the Communes of Manche, despite the topics being quite different - this appears to have been the result of a rather peculiar editing error back in 2011. The nominator's rationale relates to this unrelated content rather than what I have now restored - an article on an administrative area, which at least at first sight is of a type that we often keep as being in line with Wikipedia's function as a gazetteer. PWilkinson (talk) 12:56, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- Withdraw. Looks good to me! I didn't see that in the article history (but I didn't look at it that long either, shame on me). I withdraw my nomination for AfD. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 15:20, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge. Numerically, we have 10 deletes/merges and 4 keeps, which amounts to 71% keep, usually considered consensus. The keep/merge arguments are that the coverage is trivial and not sufficient for WP:GNG (a variation - one event). The keep votes are that the coverage is not trivial and that nothing has changed from the previos nomination. The previous nomination, not surprisingly, had the same arguments, with the majority voted for keep. Thus, the things did change from the previousl nomination, and the change is that more users now think that the coverage is trivial. Given the consensus, the article can not exist as a standalone article; given still a significant number of keep votes, it should be merged rather than delete.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:05, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yaheh Hallegua

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

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

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}}.

AfDs for this article:

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

Agreeing with User:Joe407 from the first nomination, I find it utterly disturbing to have an article on a woman who's only "claim to notability" is the fact that she does not (want to) have kids. The fact that she's the last "female Cochin Jew of childbearing age" merits a mention in Cochin Jews or Paradesi Jews at most (which there already are), but not a seperate article on her whereabouts and her motivation "not to marry her cousin". This article should've been deleted long time ago. bender235 (talk) 10:08, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The subject's notability, as defined by Wikipedia:Notability, is derived from significant coverage of her in the numerous reliable sources that are cited in the article, with The Last Jews of Kerala devoting five pages to coverage of the subject. That is why the previous AfD resulted in consensus against deleting the article. Let me quote the general notability guideline:

If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list.

That something is disturbing some people has no bearing on its notability, and is not a valid reason for deletion. --Joshua Issac (talk) 10:43, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One mention in some book does not merit notability. In the (much more popular) book The Big Short by Michael Lewis a couple of small-time traders and analysts are mentioned over much more than five pages, still none of them will ever have a Wikipedia article. The other sources quoted in the article barely mention her at all. For instance, the obit of her uncle, Sammy, only mentions an unnamed "niece" of his. I still don't see why Ms. Hallegua is notable enough to have her own Wikipedia article. --bender235 (talk) 13:53, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One mention in some book does not merit notability.

No, but significant coverage by multiple reliable sources does, and that's why the subject has a Wikipedia article. The Last Jews of Kerala is just one of those multiple sources; the others include The Rough Guide to Kerala, The Daily Telegraph, The Economist, etc. The "small-time traders and analysts" that you refer to are irrelevant to this discussion: please see Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#What about article x? and Wikipedia:Other stuff exists#Deletion of articles. --Joshua Issac (talk) 17:02, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Like I wrote below, all sources listed in that article besides the Last Jews of Kerala book mention Ms. Hallegua with only a single sentece each. Sometimes not even by name. So all we have is a single book that uses her story as anecdotal decoration. That's it. In my eyes, that fails to meet notability criteria by a mile. --bender235 (talk) 21:50, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that you may not have reviewed all of the sources or read the previous deletion discussion in its entirety. The Rough Guide to Kerala also covers the subject in detail, dedicating about half a page to her; this was discussed in the previous discussion. The Indian Express article has a paragraph on the subject. Non-trivial coverage in the above three sources (The Last Jews of Kerala, The Rough Guide to Kerala and The Indian Express) is more than enough to establish notability per the guideline (quoted in my first comment on this page), without even having to review the other sources that are present in the article. In your reply below, you even appear to have found additional references from The Guardian, which isn't present in the article, and only serves to further solidify the case against deletion. --Joshua Issac (talk) 08:38, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind telling me your definition of "non-trivial coverage"? For example, this Guardian piece on youth unemployment opens with what I referred to as "anecdotal decoration", a brief description of a young woman named Argyro Paraskeva who's affected by unemployment in Greece. Her story fills three paragraphs and about a dozen sentences. Way more than in Ms. Hallegua's case. So tell, did Ms. Paraskeva receive "non-trivial coverage" in your eyes? Enough to merit her own Wikipedia article, which then supposedly describes her hardships in unemployment? If not, then why Ms. Hallegua? Where's the difference? --bender235 (talk) 10:07, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My definition of non-trivial coverage has nothing to do with this discussion. Let's instead check what Wikipedia's notability guideline says:

"Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.

The example given in the guideline of trivial coverage is a passing mention in a single sentence. By this definition Ms Paraskeva does indeed receive significant coverage, but it is insufficient to merit her own Wikipedia article, since the coverage also needs to be by multiple sources. That's the difference. Also, you are picking holes in coverage by a single online source, when notability is already established by coverage by the two print sources. Shortcomings of additional sources do not decrease that notability in any way. --Joshua Issac (talk) 18:49, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Something you need to know: the number of sources is irrelevant. Five trivial mentions are still trivial mentions, and thus meaningless. --bender235 (talk) 09:43, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are not correct about the relevance of the number of sources. Please read the general notability guideline for an explanation on why the number of sources matters.

As I stated before, additional sources do not decrease notability that is already established. The subject in question is covered in detail by at least two sources, The Last Jews of Kerala and The Rough Guide to Kerala, and possibly The Economist, if one considers three paragraphs in an eight-paragraph article to be significant coverage. Trivial mentions by additional sources like The Telegraph and The Hindu do not decrease notability that is already established by detailed coverage in the other sources. --Joshua Issac (talk) 16:24, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nothing has changed since the previous nomination. The reliable and verifiable sources provided support the claim of notability, regardless if anyone finds the reason for the coverage to be "utterly disturbing". Alansohn (talk) 01:46, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still waiting for an explanation why side notes as short as single sentences are deemed "significant coverage" here. For instance, the first source on the article, this [7] Guardian article, mentions her in one sentence. So does this [8] Economist article. The only actual source mentioning her is this book by Edna Fernandes, and this [9] review of said book. In what world is this significant coverage? --bender235 (talk) 11:31, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SHE STILL HAS YET TO MARRY HIM!?!?!?--brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:28, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:BLP1E. I'm not persuaded that this person meets WP:GNG even in a basic sense -- but it seems rather obvious to me that any notability she might have fails to get beyond 1E. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:08, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - please note the canvassing by CBM (talk · contribs) here. GiantSnowman 14:52, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to respond formally: posting about a BLP AFD on the BLP noticeboard is no more canvassing than posting on the list of Judaism-related discussion (see above) or posting on a WikiProject page. An obvious concern with this article is BLP policy, and having people who are familiar with BLP comment (in either direction) would be a help to the discussion. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:58, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - You specifically cited BLP1E in your post at BLPN i.e. you stated that you believed that the article was non-notable i.e. you did not word your post neutrally i.e. you canvassed. GiantSnowman 15:07, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Posting concerns about BLP1E on BLPN is an entirely proper thing to do. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:36, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Not when linking to an AFD. Giant Snowman 20:45, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS. Giant Snowman 14:56, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One event and not news? The fate of an entire people rests with this one person. The Kennedy assasination was one even and I think we have 3 - 4 articles on that. The holocaust was an attempt at erasing a people but I don't want to count all those articles.--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:44, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I was surprised when I found Martha (Passenger Pigeon). Shanawdithit also has an article. Yaheh Hallegua may not be as notable but when her group of people are gone she may be very notable. A BLP courtesy delete may be warranted as well and undelete in the future if more notability arises. I am not saying wp:otherstuffexists but the notability of these articles could be used in arguments here. I actually don't care either way. I see no problem with a redirect and keeping the history. Full deletion of the material would make re-creation in the future that much harder. I haven't looked yet but how many other languages have an article on her?--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:03, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ms. Hallegua is not the last of her kind. Only the last "female of child-bearing age". So regardless of whether she would die with or without having kids, she would not be a 2nd Shanawdithit. --bender235 (talk) 12:44, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A decent amount of coverage for someone whose only great achievement is to potentially be the last of her kind. This article should be monitored carefully, as she may well change her mind (as women are wont to do ). If so, her notability goes up in smoke and the article can be safely deleted.--Auric talk 20:02, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to the significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, as listed in the article and referred to in this discussion. I've not read "THE LAST JEWS OF KERALA" but according to the last AFD discussion its coverage is apparently extensive: does anyone want to refute this claim? COmbined with the other sources, clearly adequate for notability. This nomination also seems to be slightly 'keep listing it until it gets deleted' (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ATA#Repeated_nominations) because the nominator has not identified what's changed since the last nomination. 87.113.137.59 (talk) 11:32, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's funny that you consider her notable while also admitting that you did not read the only source that actually mentions her beyond non-significance. This AfD is getting ridiculous. --bender235 (talk) 12:42, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, I haven't managed to purchase and read a copy of the book in the 6 days that this AfD has been open. However, both "Treasurytag" and "Serpents choice" in the previous deletion debate claimed to have read it and identified the coverage as 'significant'. Let's b e clear: are you saying that "Tresaurytag" and "Serpents choice" were lying? Have actually you read the book yourself? Please confirm. 87.113.137.59 (talk) 16:56, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please also confirm: what has changed since the last deletion debate? Is it just that you dislike the result so thought you'd reopen the debate?

The last AfD was biased. The contributor with the only solid argument—User:Joe407—was ignored.

I did not accuse anyone of lying. Per WP:AGF I assume all references in said article are valid. However, as I have repeatedly said: being mentioned in a book does not make a person notable. Just like being mentioned in a newspaper article does not make one notable. It depends one whether the "story" in question is the actual subject of a book/newspaper article, or just decoration. --bender235 (talk) 21:53, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'The last AfD was biased' - what do you mean by this? Were the contributors bribed? Were dissenting comments deleted? What do you mean? (Also, PLEASE CLARIFY whether or not you have read the book. Thanks.) 87.112.244.252 (talk) 21:55, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read all the sources bender? I found her mentioned in at least two others. 'Last of her kind' may not quite fit but 'last hope for her kind' will. I agree that 'keep listing until deleted' with no new arguments is not the correct way to deal with articles that some editors don't like. Taking them off your watchlist is.--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:31, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the other sources mention her name. But she is not the subject of these reports. Her story is just "anecdotal decoration", like Ms. Paraskeva, Mr. Stolis, and others in this Guardian piece on youth unemployment. That is no "significant coverage" as defined by WP:BIO, and by no means merits an article on Ms. Hallegua motivation not to marry her cousin. --bender235 (talk) 17:01, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why then would you make the false statement: "the only source that actually mentions her" and bold only? You have not brought up any new points when you filed the AfD. As I said before if it is a matter of not liking the article then don't read it and take it off your watch list. Can we only assume that when it is kept once more that you will file yet a fourth AfD with nothing new brought to the table. Can you agree that this will be the end or will you file a 4th after it is kept? These AfDs are a big waste of time for many articles that are kept over and over again. AfD1 keeps it, AfD2 deletes it, AfD3 keeps it yet again. Why are we wasting time repeating the same points each time with nothing new?--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:33, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't a false statement, because that dubious Last Jews of Kerala book seems to be the only source where Ms. Hallegua is mentioned as subject, not as decoration.

And no, this is not about me not liking an article. It is about Wikipedia not including articles in random non-notable persons. Putting aside the fact that in this article a random woman is pilloried for not marrying her cousin, none of the sources in that article include enough coverage to meet Wikipedia notability criteria for biographies. Clear and simple. --bender235 (talk) 21:00, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You still haven't brought anything new to this 3rd AfD. Others have disagreed with your assessment and have kept it. They will probably keep it again here. Someone will continue to keep filing AfDs on it. It isn't going to go away just because it keeps getting filed. It just keeps wasting our time in repetition of the same points. Ignore it, don't read it, take it off your watchlist and forget it exists instead of wasting editing time here. Wikipedia will not fall into the sun if we have one article that you think isn't notable. Cloudscape photography, Cosplay photography and many more in Category:Photography by genre are truly not notable if you want to Afd a few of those to fix Wikipedia.--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:56, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but this is not how Wikipedia works. I won't ignore that such a crappy article exists just because you want me to. --bender235 (talk) 09:08, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The mentions in the cited sources are really trivial, except for one, and I don't find better from my own searches. Moreover, I find in The Rough Guide that she refuses to have her photo taken, suggesting an aversion to publicity which should (see WP:BIODEL) weigh in favor of deletion in this borderline-at-best case. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:14, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's the most important point. Sadly enough, this article pillories a random woman (with picture!) for not marrying her cousin. This is sad and disgusting. This article needs to be deleted. --bender235 (talk) 09:11, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't think it is pillorying her. Its just stating facts, as stated in reliable sources. Is there any particular wording you think is critical of her? Because if so, we should change it. 87.113.137.59 (talk) 16:56, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BIODEL only applies to articles where the subject has requested deletion. It does not apply to situations where editors have only guessed that the subject may want the article to be deleted, based on the refusal to have a photograph taken. --Joshua Issac (talk) 18:49, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware that that's the wording of the policy, but Ms. Hallegua is not exactly in a position to request deletion of her article. As I said in my comment, I would support deletion anyway because she doesn't pass our notability guidelines, with anything resembling significant coverage in only one source, but since a source specifically mentions that she avoids publicity, I thought BIODEL could also be relevant. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:29, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As a courtesy to a borderline notable. Undeletion may be warranted in the future as with Scarlett Keeling. Since the Keeling deletion a book about the case has been published and the UK parliament is now involved. It is probably due for undeletion review.--Canoe1967 (talk) 14:11, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:43, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have looked at the cited references and the articles do not seem to be about her. Yes, journalists open articles with mention of her but that is essentially about style - opening with a human interest quote or description to lead the reader in. Other members of the community also get mentioned. As commented there is little evidence that the subject is forthcoming in interviews or is otherwise prominent in her community, only the the chance of being the youngest remaining because she has no children (surely the point is that everyone else in her generation has moved away, not that she has somehow acted to ensure the community dies out). So she falls below the notability threshold. --AJHingston (talk) 11:48, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The books and the articles do not need to be on the subject to satisfy the notability guideline. The guideline explicitly states that the subject "need not be the main topic of the source material". --Joshua Issac (talk) 18:49, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The photograph currently used in this article was uploaded in 2011 by a now banned user User:TreasuryTag who described it as entirely his/her own work. While it is possible that this user traveled to Kochi to take a poor quality photograph (480 dpi) of this individual, it seems at least suspect. Perhaps someone who is more familiar with the reasons why this user was indefinitely blocked/banned could shed light on whether this photograph should be deleted as non-free use. 24.151.116.25 (talk) 16:21, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Treasury Tag's block had nothing to do with the copyright status of images he uploaded. It is does not seem unlikely that he took the photograph on a trip to Kochi to visit the synagogue. Moreover, one's got to be acting in pretty bad faith if they would go as far as faking Exif metadata, and that suspicion is unwarranted. --Joshua Issac (talk) 19:19, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Paradesi Jews per WP:BLP1E. Whatever notability she has is related to the one circumstance of not marrying a cousin. Since the relevant info is already at the merge target, this is essentially a call for a redirect. 24.151.116.25 (talk) 16:34, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Paradesi Jews#Last remaining Paradasi Jews (P.S. I have now started that sub-section) that would be enriched by the added information. Jews are not "Mohicans" and at the end of the day, there is no such thing as "the last Jew" because in some way or other, Jews, especially ones not notable for nothing else but their existence, can fit into the histories of the larger notable Jewish communities that either once existed or that continue on. IZAK (talk) 02:57, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Paradesi Jews as this is only notable as a part of that article. Jason from nyc (talk) 17:55, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't even understand the concept here. According to Cochin Jews, due to emigration, there are 85,000 Cochin Jews in Israel. The community could be repopulated if some of the Cochin Jews living in Israel moved to India. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:42, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is an opinion piece, not an encyclopedia article. Bearian (talk) 22:10, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an opinion piece. It is a balanced summary of the coverage of the subject by numerous sources. --Joshua Issac (talk) 16:31, 19 July 2013 (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. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:17, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of popes from the Medici family

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

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

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

These lists are already part of the lead sections of House of Medici, Conti di Segni and House of Borgia, respectively. They are also much more elaborated in those respective articles than in these lists. Having this lists separate from the articles seems redundant. Nothing to merge so I propose we just delete them. Feedback ^☎ 17:28, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of sourced content for these historical articles. There's no reason to delete them per se, but an editorial decision to turn them into redirects and/or summary style breakouts might be appropriate, per WP:ATD. Jclemens (talk) 07:17, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. We could redirect to their respective family pages, I suppose. I think articles like List of popes from the Borgia family, for example, is an unwieldy title and guarantees it will only ever be a short bullet point list that duplicates what is already at Borgia. But an article at Borgia popes, the collective impact of which has been written about extensively so as to free us from WP:SYNTH issues, would be a great addition. That title current redirects to the list. I think it should be the other way around. It would allow them to be listed anyway and I think it would make for a good content fork from the family article. Not everything has to be listified. Thoughts? Stalwart111 12:17, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into family articles. The Medici case names the popes but not in a table. The table migfht usefully be added to House of Medici#Titles (as a new section). Peterkingiron (talk) 16:01, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merging would be appropriate if it weren't for the fact that all the popes are mentioned in the lead sections of each family article. I guess if you think it's appropriate we restate them in list-form at the end of each article, then merging would be the way to go. Feedback ^☎ 17:37, 23 June 2013 (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 · · 17:29, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:42, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect' or merge and redirect, don't care, but we don't need lists when they're covered in the family articles quite nicely. Osiris (talk) 03:03, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge As others have commented, the Medici popes are a sufficiently notable topic in their own right that we need to ensure that users can readily locate them. Whilst they are mentioned in the narrative of the Medici article they may not be immediately obvious at first glance. It has a long lead and a substantial article, so they need flagging in an appropriate section. The Conti and Borgia articles are different, but both would benefit by clear signposting especially in the case of theSegni where their notability stems mainly from the fact that they did produce five popes - that article is little more than a stub and a listing would give clarity. Conti popes should be added as a redirect. --AJHingston (talk) 11:26, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep alll The Medici especially--that;s's a rather generally known matter of interest. For the others, the main thing that is needed is expansion. 'DGG (at NYPL) (talk) 21:21, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to respective family articles that already include this data. -- 202.124.72.19 (talk) 12:53, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all If the Medici Popes page is a keeper, this one is too. Yes, Medici Popes are of greater scholarly interest, but there is often confusion regarding how many Popes were Borgias and which ones were which. I recently had an argument with someone on just that, and this convenient list cleared the matter up. Redirecting to the verbose Borgias page would have taken more time to sift through. Also, the title "List of popes from the medici family" may be long but typing in "Borgia popes" gets you here too. This list is convenient as well as consistent with the Medici Popes page.Krshwunk (talk) 11:55, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. Not sure exactly why these were nominated. Bearian (talk) 21:22, 16 July 2013 (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. L Faraone 23:56, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clean Green Cayo

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

I found no coverage for this environmental project. This was done by a youth service. SL93 (talk) 19:32, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belize-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A laudable initiative but does not meet the inclusion criteria for Wikipedia as there is no coverage in independent reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 16:05, 27 June 2013 (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 · · 21:52, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the past, we usually have deleted smaller Rotary International, Rotaract, and Oddfellows clubs and projects, sometimes merging them into the larger articles. See, for example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rotaract Club of Manila (redirect), and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Independent Order of Odd Fellows Philippines (2nd nomination) (merge), compared with deletions after discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Rotary Club of Milton, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rotary Club of Coimbatore Downtown, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rotary Club of Pensacola Suburban West, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rotary Club of New York at the United Nations. I prefer to merger in this case, to preserve the editing history, but a simple redirect is cheap and easy. Bearian (talk) 17:10, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I wouldn't be against merging then. SL93 (talk) 18:11, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:41, 7 July 2013 (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. L Faraone 23:56, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2005–06 FC Kremin Kremenchuk season

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

Non notable season article for a team not playing in their country's top division as per WP:NSEASONS. Contains no real sourced prose either. Seems to contravene WP:NOTDIR. Fenix down (talk) 18:26, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NSEASONS. Giant Snowman 08:25, 24 June 2013 (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 · · 21:52, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think the gaps they have in having pages for their other seasons is a bit stark, but I'm not comfortable with a deletion without knowing more context. Were they relegated down, and could conceivably be back up? RyanGrant (talk) 05:00, 7 July 2013 (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. ; if users wish to keep discussing the possibility of merging them all, it can be done on the talk page. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 12:34, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Spider Solitaire (Windows)

(Find video game sources: "Spider Solitaire (Windows)" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

Similar to Chess Titans, this is a possible case of ~~WP:NOTTEMPORARY~~ WP:NOTINHERITED. See the deletion discussion for Chess Titans on why I nominated this. EditorE (talk) 21:52, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) czar · · 21:55, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:56, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. czar · · 21:56, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per precedents: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FreeCell (Windows), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hearts (Windows), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solitaire (Windows). Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 22:06, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Those aren't precedents - they have established WP:N individually, not simply inherited from Windows. Ansh666 23:16, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Those are precedents - this article satisfies WP:N individually as well. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 02:38, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Okay, I can see this one. Needs much better sourcing for me to say it actually does, though. Ansh666 02:40, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can understand the reasons to keep on FreeCell (a form of solitare that was popularized on Windows) and the other Solitare (the bouncy-card animation its claim to fame), but there is nothing here to suggest that the shipped Spider Solitare in Windows is notable on its own, and the arguments applied before do not apply. 90% of this article fails WP:NOT#GAMEGUIDE, and what's left is not enough for any reasonable article. I am not aware of any appropriate merge target for this, but there may be one, and if such exists, merge + redirect makes sense. But right now, deletion makes the most sense. --MASEM (t) 22:13, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Masem - I was going to link to WP:NOT#GAMEGUIDE too. Ansh666 23:16, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep - improved (this counts as a W:RS). Ansh666 17:53, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nothing GAMEGUIDEish about this article can't be solved through regular editing (i.e., deleting the offending text to pare down the article), and as such WP:ATD expects that before deletion is considered. Even so, as a Windows component, the article can clearly be merged into Windows 98 if the RSes are deemed insufficient. Jclemens (talk) 23:36, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Shouldn't all software (games, programs, etc.) have their own pages? Therefore, this page should still exist. Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 04:15, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No, that's not a metric used on Wikipedia. Notable games or software programs that meet WP:N get pages. --MASEM (t) 06:23, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:NOTTEMPORARY cannot be a reason for deletion. It says that, once a topic has received enough coverage to be classed as notable, it doesn't need continued coverage to maintain that notability. (So, for example, a book that was widely reviewed in the 1970s doens't become non-notable just because nobody's said much about it in the last 30 years.) Dricherby (talk) 09:07, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, actually it's a good reason, because the fact that the Macintosh is a very notable computer does not make the game notable, and we wouldn't we need ongoing coverage of a ~~Macintosh~~ Windows computer by making articles of computer games bundled with the computer. It's still a non-notable topic. EditorE (talk) 12:32, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The concept that notability of MS Windows (This has nothing to do with Macintosh) doesn't make bundled software notable is WP:NOTINHERITED. Seriously, WP:NOTTEMPORARY has nothing to do with it. Dricherby (talk) 12:47, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment: WP:GAMEGUIDE is an invalid reason for deletion in this case, since there is other content present. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 12:33, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- What in the Devil's name are you talking about? Most content (high score, Highest Scores, Winning Strategies and for getting a high score) look all pretty much GAMEGUIDE to me, and there's very little other content that is present here. EditorE (talk) 12:42, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I deleted a large amount of original research (maximum possible scores, probability distributions) and game guide (strategies for winning and getting high scores) from the article. Dricherby (talk) 12:53, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Evidently not a hoax, would be unfair to remove hard work that has gone into genuine proven article. The Big Hoof! (talk) 17:04, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I didn't say it was a hoax. I said the game was not notable enough to have it's own article. EditorE (talk) 12:57, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all of them!- Look, obviously each individual MSF game up for deletion is not notable on its own. On the other hand, combined, they seem to be notable to be included. So, how about we merge all of them into one article? As they stand right now, they are generally devoid of much meaningful content. Cheers, Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 23:38, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A quick Google books search shows lots of books that specifically discuss this program, and the descriptions go beyond the sort of "this thing also exists" coverage that is often targeted by WP:NOTINHERITED. I added one such source to the article (a game design book). While this might classify me as a minor contributor to the article, my edits came about after finding this discussion and researching notability, and I have no vested interest in this article. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 23:51, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep There is a single line in the article, which established WP notability - As of 2005, it was the most played game on Windows PCs, surpassing the shorter and less challenging Klondike-based Windows Solitaire - scope_creep (talk) 02:01, 08 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That needs to be sourced to establish WP:N; such a source would take away any doubt about notability. Ansh666 01:30, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - True, but I don't doubt that it's true. For millions these two games combined were the first experience of computer gaming, back in day. Everybody I knew who used Windows played them, and being in computing, it was a lot. scope_creep (talk) 10:51, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, if we had a reliable source that states that, that'll be great. EditorE (talk) 12:57, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Some, if not all, of you seem to have not actually read the article - a reliable source is already present as a reference for that very line! Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 19:35, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Unless this was covered under an SNG (which video games are not), a single fact is not sufficient for notability. We need "significant coverage" which means multiple sources and more in-depth coverage. Its a nice fact to include in the merge to a article about installed games with Windows, but not enough to support a standalone. --MASEM (t) 00:08, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable per WP:GNG: the article is referenced to multiple RS covering the subject. Also it is simply insane that a piece of software included by default in the most popular operating system can be deemed "unnotable" per our house rules. Here we're in safe WP:GNG territory, but I wonder if whoever does these nominations asks her/himself what benefit such a deletion would give the readers. If our rules make things worse for the encyclopedia and its usefulness, it is time to ignore them (and then fix them). -- cyclopia^speak! 15:27, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The guideline pages say there are occasional exceptions, as does WP:IAR. Just common sense. Hundreds of millions of people have this on their computer, unknown millions have tried it, and nothing gained by deleting the article. Dream Focus 15:59, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Popularity is not equal to notability. Covering the article in a larger topic on installed game would be more appropriate to maintain the verified information instead of a weakly sourced standalone article. --MASEM (t) 00:08, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I'm beginning to sound like a broken record, but I think another merge is in order here. I agree with that move per Aua LazyBastard Guy 19:32, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We need to look at this carefully. MASEM has stated that popularity is not equal to notability, which needs to be examined carefully, since it only work's when the numbers in the particular grouping, concept etc are small. Windows 98 sold between 600-700 million copies which equates to about 6-8% of the population of the planet. I think the majority of people who bought a Windows 98 PC and later systems played this game. So the question is - What is the granularity of notability? When does something that is popular become notable? Is the 1000 folks, 5000 folk, 100k, 500k. I think that any game, concept, idea, physical item that is used by that number of folk is notable. As regards the sources, I think they are perfectly sound. scope_creep (talk) 13:23, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Unless the topic falls under a subject-specific notability guideline (which video game/computer software doesn't), notability is only demonstrated by coverage in secondary sources. Something that is "popular" but never described in sources will never make for a proper WP article. Of the sources:
  - about.com is normally not reliable (it is just inside the definition of an SPS). Even given that, the source has *5* sentences about Spider Software, and only how to play the game. Definitely not secondary.
  - the book Trefry may appear to be good, but what parts of the chapter that are visible on google books shows that it is basically discussing the differences in the general solitare (not computer versions) of Klondike and Spider Solitaire. It may support the popularity fact, but that's it. It's secondary about the solitare game of Spider Solitare, but it really doesn't speak anything directly to the software version.
  - The gamespot has all of four sentence about the game. Definitely not significant and barely secondary.
  - Help files are primary sources, okay for sourcing facts, but not for notability.
  - Microsoft's own page is basically another help page - primary, not secondary.
- Basically, there's no proper sourcing to demonstrate notability and the need for a standalone article. For all purposes, the only thing that is different from the windows version of the game from the actual solitaire game with cards is the ability to highlight possible moves and the scoring system. All which can be convered in a brief statement about the game in a larger article about installed games shipped with Windows OSes, but far from able to support a standalone article. --MASEM (t) 12:50, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Spider_Solitaire_(Windows) has been viewed 20720 times in the last 90 days. [10] Total number of times its been seen over the years unknown. Dream Focus 13:44, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- And? We don't consider page stats in AFD discussions. --MASEM (t) 14:01, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - They shouldn't be an argument for keeping per se, but we should consider them along with other evidence. Again: we're here for readers, not to play a role-playing game with our ruleset. -- cyclopia^speak! 15:01, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration.
Merge to Spider solitaire The notability of this program isn't independently notable of the parent game p b p 14:59, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Regarding the nomination statement, this is another case in point in that we need to have nomination statements certified by an experienced editor before involving the community, in an AfD discussion without an argument for deletion. Unscintillating (talk) 13:08, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As far as wp:notability, this topic is beyond famous, and yes, we can present page stats to explain what some of us consider routinely obvious to editors who may be neither PC users nor game players, that this topic satisfies WP:N as "worthy of notice" before we even start to look at specific guidelines such as WP:GNG. Of course, WP:V remains a core content policy, and this article has problems in this regard, but the problems with WP:V in this article do not rise to the level of WP:Deletion policy. Although AfD is not clean-up, I added a few tags which should alert readers to problems in this article, and hopefully will lead to a better-sourced article. Unscintillating (talk) 13:08, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If it is "beyond famous" there should be plenty of sourcing to back that up, right? I've looked and found little beyond blogs and forum posts, and yes, if there was more, I would consider that. It meets WP:V, hence why a merge to a larger article about pre-installed Windows games makes sense, but not a standalone article, which is the metric that WP:N aims to resolve. --MASEM (t) 13:14, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory Trefry (2010). Casual Game Design: Designing Play for the Gamer in All of Us. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers. p. 108. ISBN 978-0-12-374953-6. Retrieved 2013-07-14. In fact, that's where much of the joy of Spider Solitaire stems from: parsing and solving a complex sorting problem. ... Microsoft's usability research team found in a 2005 study that Spider Solitaire finally passed Windows Solitaire (the Klondike...

I think you are trying to get me to comment on WP:GNG notability, but such is not a policy/guideline-based question. wp:notability does not require sources, it did at one time, but that is now six years ago. It is WP:V that is our core content policy. If blogs and forum posts are being used to WP:V source the article, then strip them from the article, down to a stub if need be, but this is not a wp:notability issue. The other point you make regards merge. Yes, wp:notable topics do not require a standalone article. But this is an AfD discussion and the wrong forum to discuss merge, and a merge result from AfD is not binding even if we had the discussion. Unscintillating (talk) 14:05, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:V is content policy, and because it meets WP:V, it is a reason to keep the information about the game somewhere on WP, but WP:V doesn't say anything about a stand-alone article or not (short of topics lacking third-party sources). But the requirement for a stand-alone article is WP:N. (And it is important that while I am well aware that AFD is not for merge discussions, it is a valid option to discuss if someone otherwise brought the article to AFD on good faith they believed it should have been deleted, as in this case. I do believe this should be merged, not deleted). Also, again, I've seen that book section in question from Google, and it is little about the software program itself and more about the differences between the two forms of the general solitaire game, with the fact both were pre-installed Windows games a side note. The notability sourcing does not exist to allow a stand-alone article. A separate "List of games installed with Microsoft Windows", sure. --MASEM (t) 14:29, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"...this is a possible case of WP:NOTTEMPORARY" was the initial nomination statement. Is this what you mean by "brought the article to AFD on good faith they believed it should have been deleted"? Although I think the topic is wp:notable, there is not a lot of sourcing and it isn't going to much matter to the encyclopedia if the topic is merged or where it is merged, and I think this depends mostly on the people willing to do or doing the work. Unscintillating (talk) 19:41, 14 July 2013 (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. Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:35, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2006–07 FC Kremin Kremenchuk season

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

Non notable season article for team not playing in their country's top division as per WP:NSEASONS. Contains little in the way of sourced prose in contravention of WP:NOTDIR. Fenix down (talk) 18:30, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NSEASONS. Giant Snowman 08:26, 24 June 2013 (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 · · 21:53, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:39, 7 July 2013 (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 19:49, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rotaract Club of University of Moratuwa

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

Non notable chapter of an organization at a single university. While I see the large amount of work that has gone into this article, it would have been used more appropriately elsewhere. This was accept from AfC, but one role of AfC should be to help prevent this sort of wasted effort. DGG ( talk ) 00:57, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - the activities of the Club have been reported in depth in a number of apparently reliable news sources. All that being said, there are excessive chunks of information which are unsourced and should be culled! The club has its own website which it can use to report all its activities/past presidents ect, in detail. Sionk (talk) 01:12, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 07:50, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete student club at a single school, contents almost entirely trivia. Wikipedia isn't a free webhost. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 10:55, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry that you thought so. Its about one of the most active club of a University and the clubs projects benefits the society at large. As the primary contributor of this article I'd like to state my protest for deletion. However if the article is too detailed, I'd be glad to simplify the material.\n — Preceding unsigned comment added by SHerath (talk • contribs) 18:44, 24 June 2013 (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 · · 17:04, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^*poke* 00:34, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As noted in my discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clean Green Cayo, this should be merged rather than deleted or kept. I am leaning towards merging it into University of Moratuwa. Bearian (talk) 21:33, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong venue Notability is not relevant to an AfD discussion for topics that would be merged if found non-notable. WP:WEBHOST would apply to # Personal web pages, # File storage areas, # Dating services, or # Memorials; which is not the case here. Unscintillating (talk) 05:46, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Starblind p b p 16:01, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This club is a key organization in Sri Lankan Rotaract movement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.94.71.181 (talk) 04:34, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Basically, per nom. Non-notable organization that has not generated relevant coverage. Drmies (talk) 04:37, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Admins, please notice also that there's a username violation in the article's history. Drmies (talk) 13:17, 18 July 2013 (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. Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:32, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of demand-generation software

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

This page, together with Comparison of marketing workflow automation software which I am also nominating for deletion, is subtly but effectively promoting a commercial firm, Act-On Software. The editing pattern, with numerous SPAs, indicates that this page has been a commercial tool since its creation. I cannot see the value of a comparison page for this sort of service anyway as it needs to be updated all the time. In any event we cannot ever be sure of its neutrality. asnac (talk) 16:46, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^*poke* 00:33, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The issues raised by the nominator are legitimate and raise concern. In addition, all of the references in the article are to the websites of companies providing this type of software. The topic isn't considered notable unless it has received significant coverage from independent, reliable sources. None of these sources are independent, and unless independent sources making such comparisons are provided, the article should be deleted. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:54, 7 July 2013 (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. With no prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:14, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Feast Eternal

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

Notability isn't explicitly stated in the article. smileguy91^talk 03:37, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 07:37, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 23 June 2013 (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 · · 17:34, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^*poke* 00:32, 7 July 2013 (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. With no prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:13, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Peterson

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

Non-notable musician with no reliable sources - I tried searching and found nothing related to music whatsoever. Beerest355 Talk 14:00, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Beerest355 Talk 14:00, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Beerest355 Talk 14:00, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Beerest355 Talk 14:00, 23 June 2013 (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 · · 18:38, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^*poke* 00:28, 7 July 2013 (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:52, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

J-Walk Blog

AfDs for this article:

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

There is no significant coverage. This was kept in the 2005 AfD as assumed as notable and in the 2006 AfD because of Google hits. Fails WP:WEB. SL93 (talk) 16:03, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No relevant independent sources have been provided. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:09, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 23 June 2013 (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 · · 18:41, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^*poke* 00:28, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable enough. Corn cheese (talk) 01:05, 7 July 2013 (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. Closed with no prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 00:11, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Journalism.co.uk

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

I found no coverage for this website. Fails WP:WEB. SL93 (talk) 16:07, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 23 June 2013 (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 · · 18:41, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^*poke* 00:27, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep well established and extensively cited website for journalists. I believe it's notable although, perhaps because of the name, I can't find oodles of coverage. It is noted here and there as here. It's enough for me. Candleabracadabra (talk) 20:38, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not what is good for an individual editor, but per WP:WEB which a listing in a book directory does not show. SL93 (talk) 21:40, 7 July 2013 (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) 06:45, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Cleveland Show writers

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

Fancruft that duplicates information already available at the episode list. Beerest355 Talk 23:44, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^*poke* 00:23, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unsourced WP:FANCRUFT. STATic message me! 18:14, 7 July 2013 (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. Aside from all the SPAs, there are only three opinions here - an impassioned nominator, one conclusory delete vote, and one incredibly spirited keep (trying to strengthen a fairly weak argument with a lot of tl;dr for optics). That's not really consensus for anything, but I am guessing that we will not get any more independent voices to wade into this morass. I have decided to close this delete because the article is quite fluffy and messy and WP:TNT applies. Perhaps a neutral stub can be put together from the meager RS -- I am not opposed to recreation, if done properly -- but this particular article is no good. -- Y not? 16:02, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Platypus Affiliated Society

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

Reject PROD by anon IP, without comment. As per PROD comment:

No reliable sources to establish notability.

Additional comment: this article is full of fluff sourcing, most of it from primary sources related to the organization. A lot of sources are to the letters page of a the Weekly Worker - not even the editorial sections - as well as some random mentions by notable figures. All said and done, there no GNG notability. Cerejota (talk) 19:24, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article has had warnings around this (put by a different editor than me):

This article may rely excessively on sources too closely associated with the subject, preventing the article from being verifiable and neutral. (April 2013)

This article's listed sources may not meet Wikipedia's guidelines for reliable sources. (April 2013)

For three months no action has been taken to fix these issues, and while there is no deadline, these are central issues of inclusion, if not fixed.--Cerejota (talk) 19:28, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (gas) @ 23:16, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (state) @ 23:17, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This petition to delete makes claims about the inadequacies of the references, but fails to indicate what references have been omitted. As a member of this organization I find this entry to include the majority of references to it, including a catalog of each of the criticisms of it. Given the substantial weight given to criticisms of the organization it unclear how the page violates the policy of neutrality. There are a number of dead links that need to be revised, but even so, there are remain over a dozen links to external organizations. There are indeed links to many notable figures, but these were either speakers in the organization's events or were published in the organization's journal - the group publishes a monthly publication distributed in Europe and North America and it hosted over 20 public events in the past year (in six different countries) The page certainly meets GNG.Inkmoustache (talk) 20:22, 30 June 2013 (UTC) — Inkmoustache (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep - Per the guidelines of notability: the organization has received 'significant coverage' by virtue of articles reporting on and/or critiquing the organization in at least 12 different sources (counting only listed references on the links section of the page) in independent reliable sources such as the _New Yorker_. Several publications have published (several) articles in which the organization has been the main focus (including editorials in the _Weekly Worker_, for example. The warnings are one thing -- and the page should be updated -- but there are no grounds for deletion and there are no grounds to the lack of GNG notability. Eulerianpath (talk) 23:21, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Due to the amount of criticisms the organization receives, and the fact the organization is referenced by other notable groups such as the CPGB with this article ^[1]. It seems to qualify for the GNG criteria; however, it really needs a cleanup to update all the dead links and relink to the original articles because they are still online, but that has been mentioned by the previous editors beforehand so it is noted. Ramba Ral87 (talk) 14:30, 1 July 2013 (UTC) — Ramba Ral87 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 00:02, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Gotta say, all !votes are from either members of this group (And a SPA to boot), or people who sound like they are connected to this group - there is the strong smell of canvas and locker rooms in here. Weekly Worker and the CPGB are certainly notable, but notability is not inherited, and Weekly Worker (With a circulation in print of 500 and 20,000 daily visits to the website) hardly constitutes a reliable source as per GNC to establish notability. Mentions in actual reliable sources (Such as the above reference mention in the New Yorker)are not about them, but their peripheral role on some event or the other - that is, they are included as source buffing (the New Yorker mention, for example, is about their small role in hosting some event for Naomi Klein - if we gave notability to everyone mentioned in such a role in the media, we might as well do away with inclusion rules). If we eliminate these source buffs, we come to realization they are not notable except to themselves and few of their rivals - there is little encyclopedic value. If anything, the only information about this group that belongs in wikipedia, if at all, is the Richard Seymour open letter, because of the sheer amount of notables who signed. I suggest this be relisted until which time actual editors agree or disagree with my article for deletion request. But keep under these circumstances would be supporting vanity pages. --Cerejota (talk) 02:42, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I'm not a member or subscriber, but as someone who runs in fairly leftist circles I think the denigration of the Weekly Worker as unreliable is a bit silly, and that the thrust of the RfD is not liking a few sources while ignoring everything else. It's certainly an article in need of cleanup, but this would be an absolutely unjust deletion. RyanGrant (talk) 05:13, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are inactive for almost a year, then show up and comment on 3 different AfDs besides this one. Seems legit. That said, the Weekly Worker is reliable as a source for many things - itself, supplementary secondary and primary sourcing, and it is - as I said - notable in itself (I mean, their editors appear on the BBC as experts on the left all the time). However, they are a not a reliable source to establish notability - which is a technical concept in wikipedia that is essentially how do we answer that question "does this warrant encyclopediazation?". Furthermore, even if they were a reliable source for notability, most of the linked material is from the letters section - not the editorial content - and even the most reliable source is not automagically wholly reliable. For notability, generally, we look for multiple mentions and direct coverage in high grade editorial content. In this case, there is basically only the mention of this subject, not in depth coverage, and most of this commentary is of a general nature. Notoriety can be part of notability, but it is not the only measure of notability. Platypus is notorious, but it is hardly notable - and the amount of SPA and socking in here shows why they are notorious: basically internet trolls. Lets not feed the trolls and delete this.--Cerejota (talk) 17:21, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem: "I will always assume good faith on the part of my fellow editors and will be civil at all times, even to those who are not civil to me." You've done a great job of questioning my bona fides, and of writing off The Platypus as a troll work, and of denigrating everyone who responded to this RfD as sockpuppets, but your own rationale for deletion hasn't passed muster. The distinction that you're efforting between notoriety and notability relies far too much on an editor's own biases regarding the source material, and The Platypus is clearly prima facie notable in that segment of leftist thought. This article is a clear keep. Have a nice day!RyanGrant (talk) 18:04, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the distinction I make of notability and notoriety is part of of the guidelines themselves - read WP:NRVE, WP:V and WP:RS. I have not been uncivil, and I didn't brand anyone as socks, some editor correctly identified two of the accounts as SPAs, and generally SPA presence means evidence of sock or meat puppetry, and I stated so. We are entitled to our opinions, and expressing them is not uncivil unless it has no basis. I suggest you participate more in the project to find out more about how this works - you clearly are confused as to the meaning of the terms notability, reliable source, assuming good faith, and civility. This is a common mistake even experienced editors sometimes make, but it is rather more common among the less experienced and the less active.

In this case, your argument is weakened by a complete misunderstanding of actual practice on policy - and you failed to respond to my specific point regarding the reliability of the material sourced to the Weekly Worker as it applies to notability in Wikipedia. I will also suggest you read this essay - WP:AAGF - as it explains why, in fact, you might not be assuming good faith, and thus, not being quite civil yourself, even if you intend to do otherwise. My interest is to remove a non-notable item from the encyclopedia, not to further the agenda of a given group, nor god forbid insult the foremost tabloid of the British left! --Cerejota (talk) 03:01, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Cerejota, you've asserted existence of spa and sock-puppetry -- but I'm not sure what this is based on or if this is intended to suggest something about (for example) my account. Please clarify. Furthermore, you've said that you think the group consists of "basically internet trolls. Lets not feed the trolls and delete this." To me, this seems a move to delete an entry because you dislike the group or think that they are "trolls". In terms of the substance of the argument, you did not respond to me, above. The number of notables that have written for, been published in, or responded to the publication meets notability standards. --Eulerianpath (talk) 22:08, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have not insisted on there being SPAs - I mentioned it once, and offered clarification because it was questioned. I have, however, remained focused on the specific issues of notability and intent. Describing the group as internet trolls is of course subjective, but it is an important argument in the presence of SPAs - whose existence was not noted first by me, but by the relisting admin. Of course, the presence of SPAs is not a reason to delete, but it is a reason to make sure the closing admin and anyone who wants to join in the discussion be aware that there might be a bad faith effort to poison the well. This is so because of WP:VANITY concerns - something that happens with some frequency here.

The reason to delete, however, remains the same: here we have again a problem with the definition of notability - "the number of notables that have written for, been published in, or responded to the publication meets notability standards". No - that is not notability, notability is multiple reliable sources making independent and verifiable in depth coverage of the topic. In the sourcing currently in the article, most of the in depth coverage is by sources not independent of the subject, or by sources generally not considered reliable sources as per the definitions here, which are specific. That notables acknowledge the existence of something is not automatically a measure of notability - as you seem to argue. Notability is not inherited, and you are making an argument it is, as we are asked to avoid during deletion discussions (Please read WP:NOTINHERITED - you are making an argument similar to point 1 there). I did reply to you in the substance, you simply ignored this, so I am repeating it in a different way, and will repeated again: your definition of notability is not wikipedia's definition of notability. You need to meet our definition, not yours.

Certainly Platypus might be used as a source or mentioned in an article about Naomi Klein, or used in the context of Richard Seymour's article to discuss the open letter or in other contexts as part of articles on other topics. No one is saying Platypus is a hoax, is non-existent, or is not notorious, or that it doesn't rub shoulders with notables. Nor is there any consideration that Platypus is not to be mentioned at all in Wikipedia. What we are discussing is if it reaches a level of notability that warrants inclusion of a stand alone article. I have explained my reasoning as to why not - but the objections to my reasoning, unfortunately, seem to misunderstand what is notability, and what constitutes a reliable source and a verification process in terms of determining notability. For example, the Weekly Worker covering Platypus is not a reliable source, because it is them alone - there is no multiple coverages - and because it is mostly in the letters section of the publication, rather than in depth editorial content. The New Yorker coverage is not about Platypus - it is a mention in the context of Naomi Klein. And one by one we see that there is not a single thread of establishing notability, but rather a random collection of mentions of Platypus, rather than coverage about Platypus. No one has shown in here that this article meets GNG or WP:ORG - specifically: "Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability". All of the independent secondary coverage from reliable sources present is trivial or incidental, and thus not sufficient to establish notability. To make it more direct: Zizek and some other notables might have mentioned Platypus, but they have not done so in a manner that establishes notability - that is, the mentions are trivial or incidental and thus not sufficient to establish notability. That is the bottom line.--Cerejota (talk) 20:17, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The appropriate guidelines in this case are given in WP:CORP. This is a clear keep. --Jean-Pierre Serre (talk) 11:20, 10 July 2013 (UTC)—Jean-Pierre Serre (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]

WP:CORP and WP:ORG (which I linked above) are the same thing. This does not meet them, as I noted above, as all coverage in reliable sources is trivial or incidental. --Cerejota (talk) 20:37, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are multiple sources addressing this subject directly in detail. The inclusion criteria for notability are satisfied by the references given in the article, which constitute more than trivial mention as there is significant treatment of the subject in reliable independent sources. Profiles in multiple independent sources directly addressing the group itself--not its engagements with other notables--are enough to establish independent notability (i.e. not inherited) and warrant inclusion as a stand-alone article. Contrary to the claim made above by Cerejota, the Weekly Worker coverage in the articles "Theoretical dead end" and "No need for party?", and the reviews in Die Tageszeitung, "Adorno, Lenin und das Schnabeltier", and Workers Vanguard, "Platypus Group: Pseudo-Marxist, Pro-Imperialist, Academic Claptrap", constitute independent and reliable secondary sources on this subject: each are authoritative in relation to the subject and published by outfits with reliable publication processes. These satisfy the minimal criteria for notability. Further, the case is strengthened considering the comparable lack of reliable, independent, third-party sources in relation to the subject more generally (WP:RS) and the international scope of the audience as indicated by the German language review (WP:ORG, "Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability.").

The editor Cerejota requesting the RfD may be motivated by a conflict of interest. Public, self-disclosed, and still-existing information identifies Cerejota as Carlos Rivera (WP:OUTING: "references to still-existing, self-disclosed information is not considered outing", "if individuals have identified themselves without redacting or having it oversighted, such information can be used for discussions of conflict of interest"). Carlos Rivera (aka Cerejota) is a signatory of the "open letter" he notes above. The letter calls on the far-Left to shun the Platypus group. If Cerejota demonstrably retains an antagonistic external political relationship to the subject (WP:CONFLICT), the RfD must be considered part of the campaign announced in his "open letter," cited in the article. --Jean-Pierre Serre (talk) 10:55, 10 July 2013 (UTC)—Jean-Pierre Serre (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]

You realize Carlos Rivera is a rather common last name, right? Se for example Carlos_Rivera_(disambiguation). Nice try tho. That said, there is no COI present - and I say so as someone who has helped shape COI policy in wikipedia, and the policy contains, verbatim, things I wrote for it. This is the problem of not focusing on the actual merits of the argument as per policy and instead attacking me with SPAs. --Cerejota (talk) 20:37, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By reasonable standards, there is sufficient evidence that the signatory of the anti-Platypus public letter Carlos Rivera and Cerejota are the same person. A quick Google search will confirm. --Jean-Pierre Serre (talk) 03:12, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Following up on Jean-Pierre Serre Jean-Pierre Serre, a search of 'Maosoleum' AND 'Cerejota' Cerejota suggests the Carlos Rivera of the Mausoleum blog who signed the anti-Platypus letter associates with the alias 'cerejota'. It also seems not merely a case of a common name as there are only a dozen names on this letter. I am not a regular editor and, for disclosure, a member of Platypus, but I would ask that the COI be considered in weighing this call for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inkmoustache (talk • contribs) 20:54, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also, the Worker's Vanguard article, cited above, as the title would suggest is almost entirely about Platypus. Platypus is the main subject of the article -- not incidental. --Eulerianpath (talk) 17:47, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Workers Vanguard is not a reliable source for notability - it is a partisan source. It might be reliable as a source for content. Please read the applicable policies and guidelines which specifically explain the difference. Put simply, Workers Vanguard is a partisan source - that is, it does not adhere either to journalistic standards nor to peer reviewed or third party examined processes, like for example a book from a well respected publisher would be. That said, even if we accept it as a source, we need multiple sources, not just one, as spelled out by me, and the links I provided, above. --Cerejota (talk) 20:37, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The necessary and sufficient criteria for reliability as far as notability is concerned are that sources (1) must be authoritative and (2) must be published by organizations with reliable publication processes, according to WP:ORG. Each of the sources cited above unquestionably meet both criteria. If a source like the Weekly Worker or Workers Vanguard is partisan or biased, this does not imply that they do not adhere to journalistic standards, etc.. This is explicitly stated in WP:RS:

[R]eliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs.

Sometimes "non-neutral" sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking.

Moreover, the fact that both partisan sources frequently publish corrections is, according to WP:RS, a "signal that a news organization engages in fact-checking and has a reputation for accuracy," which again reinforces the case for reliability. Even if you argue against the reliability of the Weekly Worker and Workers Vanguard by claiming they are "less established" according to Wikipedia's standards, this still would not disqualify them as reliable sources. It would only mean they should be "considered less reliable for statements of fact." They are not cited here as primary sources for statements of fact, but rather as secondary sources providing coverage (again, read WP:RS, WP:PSTS). Aside from multiple profiles from reliable and independent sources, notability is further indicated by the fact that the three sources are international, the Weekly Worker being British, Workers Vanguard American, and Die Tageszeitung German (WP:ORG: "Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability.") The general requirements for notability according to WP:GNG, as well as the more specific primary and alternate requirements in WP:ORG, are met. --Jean-Pierre Serre (talk) 02:56, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The point of the Workers Vanguard reference is not whether or not it accurately describes the organization or whether it is "reliable source" -- the point is to prove that (yet) another notable publication has published a substantial, in-depth article that deals primarily with Platypus, the organization in question here. The WV is not alone, but one among many. The Workers Vanguard, the Weekly Worker, and Die Tageszeitung each have published extensive articles dealing primarily (not incidentally) with Platypus. Several other publications and books have addressed the organization in less extensive ways (though the New Yorker article is long and has about a page about Platypus), the Zizek book cites an article in Platypus -- and there are more. But here you have 3 independent notable publications that write about Platypus extensively and many more that write about it less extensively. Cerejota, why have you not responded to this point or to Jean-Pierre Serre's other points? It seems we are left with a series of publications, each of which you try to dismiss in one way or another -- but all of which add up to an overwhelmingly strong case that this is an organization with interlocutors and critics that write about them substantially and from all over the world. It is an organization that people look to wikipedia to find information on -- as evidenced also by the number of hits it gets (both on wikipedia and on the platypus website). It really seems like you're trying hard to bend things and find details as to why this is "vanity page" -- even though you think that the group is a bunch of trolls that should be shut up! This case is clear and the way that you are talking about it (that you think they are trolls) demonstrates your COI. Eulerianpath Eulerianpath (talk) 00:04, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Before you comment again here - repeating already made points - I suggest you read this: Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. In your several comments, you have done many of those, and I have tried to explain to you why they are not good arguments, but it seems that repetition requires a more explicit approach.

I do not insist on anything - rather I am trying to explain to you that contrary to popular belief, deletion arguments do not consist on people screaming loudly that something is what they say it is and then winning. They consist of actual policy based argumentation, fact checking, and closing admin discretion. There is an insistence that there exist reliable source coverage that is enough to provide notability, but a real examination shows it is all WP:PUFFERY and that the only sources providing coverage are not reliable sources in establishing notability. If you want to consider Workers Vanguar a reliable source, fine - but under what criteria? It is not widely considered such, even within the far-far-left it populates. Again, and this seems to be the point you do not understand, notability and reliability for the purpose of notability are not the same thing. No amount of repetition, or not understanding policy and guideline, will change that central fact: because a source is notable doesn't mean it is reliable for this fact alone. In fact, there are plenty of potentially reliable sources that are not notable themselves - small obscure journals, small town newspapers, vanity or self-published memoirs of notables, etc. Please understand that I am explaining how wikipedia works - not debating with you the merits - which are none - of your argument. This is in the hopes you (or someone else) can come up with an actual argument for inclusion that is convincing and doesn't amount to repeating that same incorrect thing in the hopes it becomes correct.

As to the transparent attempt(s) to poison the well, it doesn't need addressing. Admins are a generally smart bunch, and I trust they know what is going on. Those are distraction from the real issue that this is a vanity page for a group that is not notable as per our policies for inclusion. --Cerejota (talk) 03:49, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And what of Die Tageszeitung? You also have not repudiated your incorrect assertion that the Weekly Worker articles were substantially about Platypus and were (also) not reducible to letters to the editor, but rather editorials themselves, as well as coverage throughout the paper. This has been listed several times and you have not responded -- continuing to insist the contrary. Please repudiate or correct. Eulerianpath (talk 16:18, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Die Tageszeitung's article is an opinion (not reporting or editorial) column, which is about Adorno not Platypus, in which Platypus is mentioned in the context of their promotion of Adorno. So yes, this source does not meet the reliability criteria. As it stands, the article is basically WP:PUFFERY. Just because you have been covered doesn't mean you are notable - it is about the quality of this coverage, and of hand mentions in opinion pieces, or coverage in low circulation tabloids, is not notability. It is not that hard to understand. I do suggest you read all the links I provided, because you still seem to be under the illusion that a mention is the same as coverage, and that a source being notable is the same as the sourcing being a reliable source for notability. It is about both quantity and quality, and the basis of WP:PUFFERY is trying to turn quantity into quality, but we are usually smarter than that around here. --Cerejota (talk) 17:18, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First of all -- the issue is the notability of Platypus here -- not me. Second, you say "just because you have been covered doesn't mean you are notable" and then you say "a mention is [not] the same as coverage". Please clarify. It seems you do not understand the notability guidelines -- which explicitly state the opposite of what you assert above. In particular they state attention (which this plainly is) by "international or national...media...is a strong indication of notability". This is clearly not an off-hand mention as it is substantially covered in the article and in the title. Your opinion of the quality of the article or of the publication is simply irrelevant. Eulerianpath (talk Eulerianpath (talk) 18:16, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:WIKILAWYER and then WP:ORGDEPTH/WP:CORPDEPTH. Put simply, there are exactly two potentially reliable sources that do coverage of Platypus Affiliated Society - The New Yorker and Die Tageszeitung's. In both cases, the coverage in incidental to the main topic of the articles, and in the case of the article in Die Tageszeitung, it is an opinion column, which are generally considered only above letters sections in terms of considering reliability for notability. Thus, while these sources are potentially reliable, the coverage is not in depth or non-incidental. There is indeed in depth coverage in two non-reliable sources. Superficial coverage in RS+in depth coverage in non-RS=notability is a false proposition. And yes, arguing WW and WV are reliable sources for notability is stretching the definition of RS. In fact, I am asking about this at WP:RS/N. --Cerejota (talk) 21:23, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm a philosophy student who tries to entertain a variety of interests. Wikipedia has always been a source for preliminary clarification - a great place to start. Cursory overviews chock-full of citations that I can then refer to for further clarification. For the purpose of my work, I can then narrow my investigation to academic sources. It's been a wonderful tool, as such. Regarding The Platypus Affiliated Society, I have no dog in this fight because, frankly, I don't know anything about it - not yet. I was brought here while trying to investigate Platypus after coming across a copy of the Platypus Review at school. Upon inquiry, fellow grad students confirmed a cursory familiarity with the organization, as well as a couple professors. It was strange to read the deletion consideration notice, as I understood Wikipedia to hold listings for legitimate phenomena. I'm not yet sure how Platypus might not warrant the same legitimacy. After reading the above comments, I get a sense that the reasons given for the dismissal of Platypus as a standalone page are unfair or, dare I say, disingenuous? Shar Jackson warrants a standalone page, North American Man/Boy Love Association warrant a standalone page. The spectrum is fairly well represented, from the obscure to the perverse. I'm unsure, therefore, of how a known and established organization is being contested for the same consideration. Hard copy brought me here. If there are problems within the page re: citations or accuracy, flag it as such, but deletion seems bizarre. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jesi1981 (talk • contribs) 06:19, 11 July 2013 (UTC) —Jesi1981 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]

You are also an SPA. So interesting nearly everyone commenting keep is an SPA.

That said, please read this WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - you are making an argument we specifically ask people not make. One of the reasons being, that for every example, there are equally valid counter-examples. For example, a much bigger, better known, and longer existing organization that Platypus exists - International Bolshevik Tendency, yet there was a successful deletion discussion for it. I am not arguing Platypus should be deleted because the IBT was - I already laid out my rationale quite clearly - but I am indeed showing how comparing one article to another is pointless and possibly even disruptive, instead on focusing on the actual merits (or lack of merits) of this article. We are discussing Platypus' article, not Shar Jackson or NAMBLA - keep to the topic. --Cerejota (talk) 20:37, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to include the deletion discussion for IBT: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/International_Bolshevik_Tendency. I think it is much more applicable to this case than I thought it was, thank you for reminding me, Jesi1981! Specially all the !v keeps getting ignored for the right reasons. One hopes for such equanimity from the closing admin here. --Cerejota (talk) 20:41, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable (NYT mentions it once en passant - which is pretty minimal). I would be more kind to it were it not for some of the ... interesting ... !votes above from what are, charitably speaking, less-than-active editors. Collect (talk) 21:33, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am not a single purpose account, have not been canvassed and am most certainly not a sock puppet. I never heard of this group until yesterday, although in the spirit of disclosing conflict of interest, I was a member over 20 years ago of one left group mentioned in the article. I have participated in over 1500 deletion debates and have over 20,000 edits here. However, well over 99% of my edits have nothing to do with left politics.

I saw this deletion debate discussed on the Reliable sources noticeboard, where the question was raised by the nominator as to whether the Weekly Worker and the Workers Vanguard should be considered relaible sources to establish the notability of a Marxist group. In my opinion, these are exactly the kind of specialist publications that are appropriate for establishing notability and sourcing articles on left and Marxist groups. Many of the articles I have written are biographies of mountaineers, and I know which mountaineering journals have a good reputation. Significant coverage in such mountaineering journals establishes notablity for mountaineers. Similarly, based on what I've read about them (and I read several issues of one of them many years ago), these two communist publications have a longstanding reputation for seriously analyzing and critiquing the ideology and work of other left and Marxist groups. These publications each have a strong point of view, but not an identical one by any means. A point has been made that much of the coverage in the Weekly Worker consists of an exchange of letters. Those familiar with the editorial policies of such left publications will be aware that a lengthy exchange of letters back and forth is indicative of serious political attention showing notability, and can't be compared to a trivial letter to the editor of my home town paper complaining of problems with garbage pickup on my street.

The article on Naomi Klein from the The New Yorker called OUTSIDE AGITATOR: Naomi Klein and the new new left] includes at least a dozen sentences about Platypus. This is significant coverage in a major mainstream media outlet. Lest the nominator argue that the article is not primarily about Platypus, please note that the General notability guideline helpfully advises us that "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material". Although the article is in serious need of cleanup, it seems clear to me that the topic is notable as we define the term here on Wikipedia. Worthy of note is that the coverage is from several countries, and is not geographically localized.

Since I have disclosed my extremely peripheral and outdated conflict of interest from several decades past, let me ask the nominator a question, though it will require some exposition first: You were the first to mention a letter critical of Platypus initiated by Richard Seymour though I am sure that you meant to link to the article about the British Marxist who styles himself as "lenin" as opposed to the American professional football player. Jean-Pierre Serre, a new user and arguably an SPA, has claimed that the nominator is a signatory to the Open letter about the Platypus Affiliated Society which I would characterize as a political declaration of war calling for the Platypus group to be ostracized on the left. The signatory in question is on record in his own blog calling Platypus "the most dangerous cult in the left". It seems to me that there are three possibilities here, and because I take outing seriously, I won't mention the person's real life name. The first possibility is that this claim by Jean-Pierre Serre is unacceptable outing, and that nothing more should be said about the matter other than a warning to cease outing. However, I note that the nominator has not made any complaints of outing, and that the nominator has previously voluntarily linked to the real world name, and also edits in the left politics topic area. Nominator, please complain now if outing is the case. The second possibility is that, as the nominator points out, the name in question is "rather common" (even among Marxists living in New York City, I suppose), and that the nominator is an entirely different person than the one who signed the open letter. If either possibility one or possibility two is true, then I apologize in advance to the nominator for this line of argument. The third possibility is that the nominator is, in fact, a signatory to that letter, and has a clear political vendetta against the subject of this article. If so, either the nominator should withdraw what is thereby exposed as a fundamentally flawed and biased nomination, or the closing administrator should take careful note of the blatant conflict of interest. So my question to Cerejota is clear and direct: Are you a signatory to the Seymour letter?

I am also compelled to point out the violation by the nominator of our core policy regarding Biographies of living people in this debate. The nominator has called the Platypus group "notorious: basically internet trolls". This personal attack against members of this group is unsupported by any reliable sources, and I remind the nominator that BLP policy says that "BLP applies to all material about living persons anywhere on Wikipedia, including talk pages, edit summaries, user pages, images, and categories." Accordingly, I request that the nominator redact this personal attack immediately.

Since the nominator has made at least twelve comments so far in this debate, and has also told other editors about Arguments to avoid in deletion debates, let me comment that experienced AfD reviwers find it somewhat disruptive when the nominator feels compelled to chide, chastise and lecture everyone who wants to keep the article, repeating the same points over and over again. The relevant essay is Avoid repeated arguments. Let's count on the closing administrator to separate policy based arguments from less relevant ones, and to make an appropriate decision. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:49, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As you are an experienced editor, I am highly surprised by a lot of your assertions:

1- COI is not present even if I am the signatory and I am neither confirming nor denying that. In any case, it presents an apparent COI, but in no way is there an actual COI. Republicans edit the Democrat's articles and vice-versa, people from rival sports teams, what not. There is no valid claim of an actual COI in those cases - as that would be preposterous: we are allowed to even edit, request for deletion, etc, our own articles. A COI is not present in that. A COI is when this relationship provides some sort of advantage - paid advocacy is a prime example, or when Jimbo got funky with his own BLP and tried to use his power to move the masses. A lone editor who might or might not have signed a letter against a topic - and who admits openly to not being particularly friendly anyways (ie announces an apparent COI without the need for outing) doesn't have an actual COI. Of course, I DO have a COI in explaining this to you (As well as the things below) as they are directed at me, but I trust that you are able to see the wisdom of my words as a general interpretation based on deep experience in conflict areas (at every end - I have had death threats thrown at me by actual COIs), as to why you migth be wrong. If you do not retract, however, I would ask that you pursue the appropriate process, because this is a serious allegation that you cannot simply make without serious implications. You probably know what the process is.

What I am indeed concerned about is about non-notable organizations having vanity pages in wikipedia, as part of their self-promotional efforts. And it has not been only political groups. I have actually successfully and unsuccessfully participated in many such AfDs, and many of them initiated by me. There was one guy that even had to be banned for sending me a death treat. My commitment to wikipedia as a project, while spotty and unreliable, has always been to its betterment, above any other consideration. Thus, while having an apparent COI, I do not have an actual COI. To ask if there is outing or not, or insist I reveal my identity, is immaterial to this case. And thus, it deserves the answer I give. BTW, what IS outing, is describing me as a leftist in NYC. I do live and claim to live in NYC. I have not made a claim to being a leftist on wiki. Please remove that and request oversight, including of this part of my comment.

2- A personal attack is a personal attack directed at an individual, and to specific material about a living person, not the opinion one has against a person's group in an anonymous way. Put simply, for an attack to be personal, it has to be to personally directed. I didn't name a person, thus I didn't engage in a personal attack or a violation of BLP. More so, in the context of the SPA-flood, it gives other editors context, so that they can make up their own minds as to the intent and purpose of these SPAs.

3- As I am doing now, I have not repeated arguments in the abstract - I have answered direct questions and requests for clarifications, and I have addressed them. In fact, the participating editors directly requested things. I think you should reconsider your view that I am repeating arguments - in particular because I am being directly addressed and asked to reply, rather than swooping in to reply with a repeat. Put simply, and you should know this, WP:REPEAT is not about avoiding all repetition, but a particular form of repetition, which is one in which there is no dialog or in which the responses are trite. Here on the contrary, when faced with the possibility of a repeated argument, I actually sought the third party commentary of RS/N, not because I felt I was correct, but because I recognized there was no possible solution, and AGF asks me to trust my fellow editors. Civility in other words, compelled me to reply to direct inquiries addressed at me. To claim these as repetitions is to really misunderstand the purpose of the essay, and my intent, essentially putting me between a rock and a hard place: if I do not reply I would be being a dick, if I do reply, I am repeating.

4- I am going to chalk it up to a bad day, but seriously, how can yo go into an AfD infected with SPAs, and go after the one productive editor around? I would have to ask you to reconsider the tone and approach you have taken, which doesn't strike me as particular constructive - focusing too much on the editor and not enough in the content, and even then, too much on the one editor who appears to be strongly committed to wikipedia, rather than the SPA farm.

As to the material content, even if we accept the New Yorker mention as meeting the extensive criteria, then we are left with the fact this only one source. But that would be repeating my argument - and as per your original interpretation of that essay, that would be wrong.

And as to WV and WW being RS, I think your argument is compelling, but I have seen other group's articles deleted on these sources and other similar ones - the consensus seems to be that there needs to be more than specialist publications mentioned. I can point, for example, to the IBT above, which has been covered VERY extensively in both publications (Workers Vanguard mentions the IBT in nearly every issue since the organization exists), and yet deleted. I do not mean it in a "other stuff exists" sense, I mean it earnestly curious as to what the implication is? Is the consensus moving? If these two are accepted in argument as reliable sources for notability, then surely the IBT would stand a chance. And that it didn't is why I oppose the acceptance of these sources as RS for notability (although certainly are RS for content). --Cerejota (talk) 10:22, 15 July 2013 (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.

^ http://www.cpgb.org.uk/home/weekly-worker/865/no-need-for-party

[1] ttp://www.cpgb.org.uk/home/weekly-worker/865/no-need-for-party

[1]