Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 June 12

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 11 June	13 June >

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 delete. postdlf (talk) 05:41, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Ibranyi

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}}.

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

This is a non-notable individual. Would have redirected the page to Most Holy Family Monastery, except that they kicked him out. Article previously deleted A7 Taroaldo ✉ 23:37, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Ibranyi is sufficiently notable. He is a founder of a religious order that has dozens of people, and has hundreds of inquirers seeking to join. He is mentioned on notable websites like Most Holy Family Monastery, and even had debates with famous people like Hutton Gibson, Mel Gibson's father. You can find Ibranyi's articles on numerous websites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FlaviusConstantinus (talk • contribs) 02:05, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The thing is, founding a religious order doesn't mean that he or the order is notable. Many people create religious orders, original religions, new churches, or offshoots of mainstream religions all the time. It's the nature of the beast, so to speak. Sometimes these offshoots or churches become notable in their own right, such as the Westboro Baptist Church. Sometimes the people who created them become notable in their own right. Most times these people don't become notable and the persons involved becomes infamous but is never mentioned or referenced in enough reliable sources to bestow notability. The only source I found that even begins to give notability is a mention in this book, but one brief mention is not enough to give notability. I did see where Ibranyi is discussed to some degree on various websites, but none of them are considered to be a reliable source that could show notability. Infamy does not equal out to notability and you could have someone and/or their work mentioned on a million websites, but if none of those websites are considered reliable sources then they're about as useful as if there were zero mentions of him out there. As far as numbers of his order go, numbers don't equal out to notability. He could have a thousand members and a million wanting to join, but that doesn't give notability. It might make it more likely he'd be covered, but it doesn't give notability. This guy just isn't notable. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:56, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd actually argue against his inclusion in any part of Wikipedia. I see where he's been added to pages such as Most Holy Family Monastery, but I fail to see where he's been mentioned in any RS that would show that him being a member of that organization is particularly of note. Being thrown out of an organization doesn't mean that you're notable or should be mentioned on a page for that organization. I don't see where he's really that notable of a member, as the only person who really seems to care is Ibranyi himself. Not even the non-RS seem to particularly care that he was thrown out either, so if this is deleted (and I'm certain it will be), I'd recommend removing him from the MHFM as well. It doesn't look like he founded it or did anything other than act as a member until his removal. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:11, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, he is the one that introduced sedevacantism to Most Holy Family Monastery, which is one of the leading sedevacantist organizations today. He is one of the few who remain who promotes "Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus". And do you have the right, according to Wikipedia policy, to call him "nature of the beast"? You are voicing your opinion which is not tolerant towards a religion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FlaviusConstantinus (talk • contribs) 19:43, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No Google News hits, and a straight G-search turns in the usual top level hits that are sure signposts of non-notability: his Linkedin page, YouTube hits, various social media. Lacking, of course, are reliable sources which would satisfy the GNG. I've two comments for FlaviusConstantinus. First, to take offense at a perfectly innocuous turn of phrase which was not -- as even the most casual browser must surely see -- aimed at the subject is not only baroque, it's uncivil. Second, whatever the subject's contribution to religious thought, that's not the measure of whether someone meets the notability standards for a Wikipedia article. It's whether the world has heard of his contributions to religious thought. So far, seemingly, it hasn't, and that's the bottom line. (One hopes that that's a suitably enough religion-free idiom, so that it isn't possible to construe it as a religious attack of some sort.) Ravenswing 02:58, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do NOT Delete: You want to delete this article on the grounds of the individual lacking notability? If you are looking for notability, why don't you honestly look? If you sincerely ran a Google Search on his name instead of immediately discriminating against Mr. Ibranyi and his "notability," you would have discovered that there are hundreds of hits besides his own writings, YouTube, and social media sites. He is very notable among so-called "Catholic" websites and so-called "Believers." Of course there are writings criticizing him, as there can be found writings criticizing almost everyone that lives or has lived. You would also find that some writers refer to him not by his recognizable name, Richard Ibranyi, but only by his initials, "R.I." because these people are too afraid to give him due credibility. So what are your REAL votes for deletion based on? Is it because you have never heard of him? Is it because you have heard of him and didn't like what you heard based on your own personal prejudices? Those are not qualities for being a Wikipedia Administrator. I personally know Richard Ibranyi and everything written about him in this article is true and can be sourced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CatholicCrusade2013 (talk • contribs) 22:27, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: First off, I moved the rant about Ibranyi concerning his inclusion on the monastery article to the talk page there. Secondly, I just put back in the SineBot signature that the SPA very curiously removed. There. That being said ... I heartily recommend that the SPA review the links at WP:PILLAR to gain a better understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. In particular, we don't commonly accept fringe websites, personal accounts and blogs as supporting our notability standards, the main one which is WP:GNG. The GNG holds that to be considered "notable" by Wikipedia standards, a subject must be discussed in "significant detail" in reliable, independent, published, third-party sources with a reputation for fact checking. Organizational websites seldom qualify; what we mean by "reliable sources" are published books, the major print media, TV networks and the like. Being linked on romancatholicism.org or johnthebaptist.us (which, it seems, is the subject's own website) doesn't qualify Ibranyi for a Wikipedia article. Pieces on him in (say) the New York Times or on ABC Nightline would. Ravenswing 00:13, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG, simple as that. Want to argue otherwise? Present reliable sources that give the subject significant coverage, rather than bizarre conspiracy theories. Stalwart111 12:32, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per others. United States Man (talk) 00:33, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do NOT Delete: - From my research, this individual is sufficiently notable. There are so many less notable individuals on Wikipedia that have been approved that I wouldn't be able to list them all on this page. He is linked to hundreds of websites and has debated people like Hutton Gibson, Mel Gibson's father. He influence is immense, if it wasn't for him Most Holy Family Monastery might not have been sedevacantist today. He is also well known in New Mexico, where he and his flock make yearly processions on Good Friday. Just do an honest research and it becomes apparent that he is sufficiently notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RussianOrthodoxEmpire (talk • contribs) 03:52, 17 June 2013 (UTC) — RussianOrthodoxEmpire (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete - would need sources better than self-published and Youtube. Esoglou (talk) 07:47, 17 June 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. --BDD (talk) 19:34, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The General Staff

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

Subject is a proposed Iranian Film that may or may not (sources are conflicting) have been approved for filming. Sources from January of 2013 suggest the film might start shooting sometime in 2014. I have been unable to find any WP:RS sources that are more current than last January. This possible film would seem to fall under WP:TOOSOON and it fails WP:NFF. Ad Orientem (talk) 23:06, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the notability guidelines for future films. I cannot find anything since the initial announcement. Until filming of this proposed film does begin, it seems best to keep mention of The General Staff to the article for Argo. Erik (talk | contribs) 01:19, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete per TOO SOON. While its plans have been spoken of in sources (ie: We learn at Coming Soon in Italian that this project may finally get funding), we can wait until filming begins and we have more information for our readers. A mention in the Argo article is per policy. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:13, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~* Speedy Delete~~ On 12 may this Persian source (Fars news agency) -which is reliable in this case- claims that they won't make this movie lack of sufficient money.Farhikht (talk) 08:02, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, we do not "speedy" film topics that have received coverage in reliable sources, specially as quite often a film declared canceled gets made later anyways. The provided Farsi article tells us that last month one certain production agency backed out, and provides only that the filmmaker stills plans on getting it made. While a delete per existing guideline WP:NFF is valid, a speedy is not. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:40, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the film received coverage also in some Persian-language reliable sources so I change my vote to delete per your claim.Farhikht (talk) 09:20, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, and thank you. IF this does eventually goes into actual production rather than just "talks", we can always revisit the topic. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:01, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for reasons above Kabirat (talk) 15:04, 14 June 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. The arguments for keeping are not based on policy DGG ( talk ) 17:23, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Leech

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

First off, I am disgusted that this article passed the AfC, let alone notability. It is atrociously written, contains one formatted reference out of twenty-three and doesn't begin to use them until section two. It looks like the writer wrote the first two sections, got given a message about how to use references and wrote the next few sections a learned user.

Secondly, most of the references are passing mentions. Those that are not are primary sources. The only one that isn't is a link to his The Apprentice profile.

Thirdly, notability; doesn't exist. Fails WP:1EVENT. Monyaka is a lot more notable than this and it failed AfC three times.

Notifications: Jcc, Kounelara. Laun chba ller 21:29, 12 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 12. Snotbot t • c » 21:49, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of The Apprentice candidates (UK series nine)#Jason Leech. Coverage is insubstantial or just quotes from him. -- Whpq (talk) 15:24, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak, Weak keep: The question of notability is hard to find but I think under GNG there is enough due to his involvement in the schools thing. However the article needs a very thorough re-write as it is currently worded in a very POV way and that needs to be addressed ASAP if it survives this. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 16:56, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Can you point out the significant coverage about Leech that was generated from that school thing? -- Whpq (talk) 18:39, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry guys, I've been off Wikipedia for a while, and I accept what other users say. I failed on this article as a AfC reviewer. Is there some sort of acception review (like a move review on WP:RM) Sorry, jcc (tea and biscuits) 18:18, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I'd move it back to AfC.--Laun chba ller 23:20, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll await someone to do that then. I'll be back on my Wikibreak, so would appreciate someone leaving a notice on my talk page or giving me a notification. jcc (tea and biscuits) 07:48, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do I really have to wait to do this or can I short-circuit the process under WP:SNOWBALL?--Laun chba ller 09:50, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just searching 'Jason Leech' through google instantly confirms the serious notability of this subject and the progressively greater interest there is in him. It does not make sense to delete the article. The article isn't great and could benefit from an experienced wikipedia editor bringing the structure up to standard, but it is nevertheless a good start which will doubtlessly be improved as more traffic passes through the page. I recommend that you keep and improve the page. User: Kounelara 14:56, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I knew I should've short-circuited this... anyway, in its current form it shouldn't be on the site regardless of notability. I would suggest bunging it back into AfCspace and getting a reviewer to deal with it.--Laun chba ller 14:54, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK - I promise to work on this at the end of this week and make the article more robust. I know the subject and can source more references. In the meanwhile, though, I would like to state, for the record, that although Launchballer is clearly acting with broadly noble intentions for the benefit of improving Wikipedia, he acts as if it's his private fiefdom and his language and attitude throughout has been very abrasive and denigrating towards other users and very unhelpful. Kounelara - 00:21, 17 June 2013

An AfC lasts a week, so you'd have about three days before it gets moved.--Laun chba ller 23:38, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unclear whether the effect of the above is to suspend this from the AfD process until re-written / sourced / re-sprayed at AfC, but unless this man has a whole other life not hinted at in this article (or, implausibly but not impossibly, won the series):

Redirect as above to List of The Apprentice candidates (UK series nine)#Jason Leech. This is basically a CV, not an article. The "school thing" is locally worthy but not in itself anything like notability-conferring - IMO. Jsmith1000 (talk) 16:19, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or redirect) -- We have a vast amount of poppy about a career that has barely begun. Clearly still NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:56, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have this strange tugging feeling that Jason Leech actually wrote this article himself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Silvabane (talk • contribs) 22:59, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You may well be right, however I tend to take all users on face value. I'd be more inclined to accuse the IP that created this discussion's talk page of being Leech.--Laun chba ller 23:22, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever the problems with this article it is very useful as an insight into Jason Leech and if we are all looking it up surely it is doing its job. Keep it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.146.23.149 (talk) 00:22, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the above writer - it does give an insight into Jason Leech, and I would be sorry to see it removed, as he has many family attachments that are of interest.

Very co-incidental that two IPs appear out of nowhere, respond within a matter of hours of each other, use the same formal language and make similar errors. Silvabane's only edit is to here, as well. Co-incidence much?--Laun chba ller 09:39, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Here it looks to me like there is no consensus as there appears to be no clear decision on what to do. I would recommend a closure as no consensus and then stick a load of clean-up templates on it or give it to the copy-editors guild as an urgent case. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:35, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - if you disregard the instant accounts and IP addresses, there is a clear consensus to redirect - it is only you who wants to keep it. This man is not (yet) notable. Jsmith1000 (talk) 10:51, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as above to List of The Apprentice candidates (UK series nine)#Jason Leech. This is just a resumé at present. I suspect he will become notable, but he hasn't got there yet. He is still at "Warhol's 15 minutes" stage. JMcC (talk) 11:19, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- It is incredibly obvious that Leech himself wrote this article. The writing contains quite a lot of distinctive phrases that Leech used a lot when appearing on the Apprentice. I also would imagine that the minutiae of his family history must, before it was written on here, have only been known to Leech and his own family, simply because no one else could possibly care. This is a vanity page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.244.15.236 (talk)
Comment - It was in fact himself who created the article, the source being his personal academia page where he references the page http://kcl.academia.edu/JasonLeech. --Silvabane (talk) 15:48, 20 June 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 DELETED by User:Tokyogirl79, per WP:CSD#A10. postdlf (talk) 17:37, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Real Life Superheroes

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

No sources, incomplete, very few of the listings have their own articles, and their is in fact a much better list of real life superheroes on the page for real-life superheroes. K.Bog 20:59, 12 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 12. Snotbot t • c » 21:17, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 13 June 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 : Speedily deleted by User:SarahStierch. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 21:54, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Imperial Republic of Kčelzora

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

Contested PROD. Tag was removed without reason. See removed PROD tag for a viable reason to delete. Insulam Simia (^talk/_contribs) 20:32, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Possible hoax (or blatantly non-notable at best); in any case, in-universe history of a nation from a fiction book. No Google hits for either the name of the nation or the author (except copies of the Wikipedia article), and nothing relevant for the book. Also, if the writer is obviously not Russian, why is his name spelled in Cyrillic? Strong (possibly speedy) delete. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 20:36, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Also nominating Zarv'akcs, language from the same book. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 20:42, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Given the comment from the article's creator on the talk page, I suggest speedily deleting the article as promotional. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 20:55, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as prod nominator, article is about a fictional town with author page and novel page that doesn't exist. Karl 334 ^Talk-^-Contribs 20:38, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can find no sign at Amazon of this book (there is a Scott J. Burnley who is not this author), and that is not a good sign. Listing there means a thing exists, but does not mean any notability per se. Not being listed there means non-notable (unless very old and out of print but still remembered). Possibly hoax, possibly not yet published, possibly I've missed something. Without evidence in WP:RS reliable independent sources, definitely non-encyclopaedic. (I am also rather dubious about an elven imperial republic, but that's another matter not a reason for deletion...) Peridon (talk) 20:58, 12 June 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) 05:42, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Trans National Place

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

Fails per WP:N I have found no reliable sources in the last year that have shown that this project is still active, including the page presented in the last AfD discussion which dates to 2012. Wikipedia is not a place for everything that has or could have existed. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:00, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:00, 4 June 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Weak Delete There are some secondary sources but I don't think they rise to the level of "significant coverage" described in WP:GNG.-Ad Orientem (talk) 04:25, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. czar · · 07:12, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. czar · · 07:12, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The nomination is way offbase. There is absolutely nothing in WP:N which suggests that sources need to be recently published, or that building projects need to be active, in order to meet the GNG's requirements. Just the sources listed in the article are significant ones -- to the Boston Globe, Business Week and the Boston Herald -- and nothing more taxing than clicking the "news" search button on this AfD turns up articles in the New York Times, Boston Business Journal, the Associated Press. A casual glance at these articles demonstrate that they discuss the subject in "significant detail," as opposed to a sentence or two. Would the nom care to proffer a valid reason to delete? In place of his final sentence for which there isn't an actual guideline, I'll tender one that does: "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." Ravenswing 11:06, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The reference from Business Week has since been removed, two or three local sources does not equal "significant coverage". - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:22, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ahem. YOU removed the link to the Business Week reference, and it's highly improper to remove references and then claim the article's under-referenced. (By the way, I found the new ___location for that reference, through the amazingly difficult trick of Googling the article's name; elapsed time, about four seconds.)
    That being said, this [1] is the link to the Boston Business Journal article. This [2] is the link to the Associated Press article featured on Fox News. This [3] is the link to the New York Times article on the project. This [4] is the link to the Washington Times article citing the project. This [5] is the link to the Boston Magazine article concerning the subject. Here's [6] the several pages concerning the subject that one published book, cited on Google Books, has on the subject. Here's [7] the USA Today article on the subject.
    These are not petty, fly-by-night sources. These are major media outlets with national reach, and they don't mention the subject in a drive-by sentence or two, but for pages on end. This ought to be a slam dunk, and I'm befuddled at the heel-digging I'm seeing. Ravenswing 00:13, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As the creator of the original article. The project was cancelled years ago, so the building was never more than a drawing. Hiberniantears (talk) 11:54, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Would you care to proffer a valid reason to delete? Ravenswing 00:13, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did. The building never existed. As a proposed building, it was notable for the liklihood of existing eventually. As a cancelled project with no associated scandals or other items it does not warrant an article. Hiberniantears (talk) 11:43, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The building got a splash in the news and then was cancelled. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 11:49, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately for your premise, there is no qualification -- none whatsoever -- in either WP:N or WP:GNG for an otherwise notable subject failing under either guideline just because it was never constructed or doesn't exist; hence my asking for a valid reason to delete. The GNG holds "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." There are, in fact, many such articles, enough so that there are several categories for unbuilt structures: [8] Of course, if either of you can find any guideline that explicitly debars a cancelled building project from having a Wikipedia article, feel free to link to that guideline. Ravenswing 02:46, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have a ton of attitude. I'll give you that. But this project lacks not for for such... spunk. You indeed seek to have no friends -- none whatsoever -- And that you would burn your bridges over a building never built strikes me as odd. Nonetheless, I give you your fake building, and say unto thee, make of thus what you will. Hiberniantears (talk) 03:45, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Regardless of whether or not the building will ever be built, this was a major project in Boston that attracted significant coverage in reliable sources. Per WP:N: 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. Projects do not have to be completed or active to meet WP:N - consider the Chicago Spire, for example. Cheers, Rai•me 15:36, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See: WP:OTHERSTUFF, the Chicago Spire had a groundbreaking and the construction process had gone ahead when it was cancelled. The Trans-National place was nothing more than an idea that got news coverage. "Not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia" - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:59, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My point was that it's erroneous to state that high-rise projects are only notable if they are either completed or still active. It hardly matters whether or not a groundbreaking was held - the Trans National Place project clearly has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, as evidenced by Ravenswing above, and thus meets the general notability guideline. Cheers, Rai•me 22:18, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Raime. Notability is not temporary. Also a Google search for Boston Piano Tower yields multiple in-depth hits from sources like The New York Time, AFX News, TIME Magazine and Business Week. The project's intent to replace an architecturally significant building by Paul Rudolph got plenty of attention. • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 6 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, SarahStierch (talk) 18:13, 12 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 12. Snotbot t • c » 20:16, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - plenty of sources, and I fundamentally disagree that things must have existed to be notable. That argument (specifically with regard to planned works and buildings) has been raised and dismissed before. Consensus has been that planned projects (even if later canceled) can be notable if they meet WP:GNG. This one does, I think. Stalwart111 23:51, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Building doesn't have to be finished to be notable. Notability is not temporary. The project was very notable as is evidenced by all the links to major media sources that Ravenswing provides. I might rename the page to something like Trans National Place project to make it seem less like an existing building, but I wouldn't delete it. -DJSasso (talk) 13:05, 13 June 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) 18:08, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Augustinian phenomenology

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}}.

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

Procedural nomination. Originally proposed for deletion by User:Hairhorn ("Not notable. Term does not appear in one reference, the other is a book of dubious notability, see Edwin Mellen Press") [9]; this was removed by User:Universitybuff, who appears to have a stake in the article. [10] - Mike Rosoft (talk) 20:01, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article should not be removed because it is a legitimate new field in phenomenology, which is evidenced by WorldCat search, philosopher's Index, etc., and it is libelous and slander to state that the Edwin Mellen Press is a vanity publisher, especially since it exclusively publishes scholarly works without stipend and 9,516of their books appear in thousands of university libraries around the world.^[1]. There appears to be a bias against religion and religious philosophy among some of the contributors. Universitybuff (talk) 20:22, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the Edwin Mellen Press article, I think that it is written without bias. The article simply states that the press has been described as a vanity press. It isn't endorsing or discrediting that position at all. However, it would be biased to leave this information out, and Wikipedia is not censored. Very respectfully, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 22:29, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone in academia (or at least in the liberal arts) knows that Edwin Mellen's books are hit or miss. Some books are quite good, some are tripe. From personal observation, it seems that when you need to get tenure and need to get a book out quickly, Mellen is the place to go. Their reputation is, as a consequence, a very mixed bag: I've cited Mellen publications and I have one or two that I'll take to the bank, but not all of them are like that. Drmies (talk) 22:34, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I strongly contest the deletion of this article since the term "Augustinian phenomenology" is, in fact, 1) used by several philosophers, and especially Joseph O'Leary and Craig J. N. de Paulo; and 2)despite the "bad press" of the Edwin Mellen Press, this is a very reputable academic publisher. The term Augustinian phenomenology does appear in several search engines. I agree that there appears to be some anti-religious sentiment motivating this speedy deletion; and such bias and philosophical discrimination violates the policies of Wikipedia. Drmies and Hairhorn on several pages appear together, which seems to be an unfair strategy to get pages removed that do not fit into someone's ideology. Augustinestudent (talk) 21:50, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Augustinestudent (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 22:14, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- Pot, kettle is on the other line. To summarize: Buff has edited thirteen times on seven articles, Augustine has edited 267 times on maybe a dozen articles. You have this AfD, and the article relating to it, the Collegium Augustinianum, and the biography of Craig de Paolo in common. So, who's colluding here? (Hairhorn and I have a bunch of articles and talk pages in common as well--582, to be precise. But we've racked up, between the two of us, over 160,000 edits.) Drmies (talk) 22:40, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, appears to be an attempt at promoting a non-notable neologism, presumably in an attempt at self-promotion. Google scholar searches point largely to a single author using this term, himself of borderline notability at best. I'd be happy to change my mind if better refs turn up, even the newer ones added since the PROD nom are not great. For example the claim that the term appears in Ricoeur's Memory, History and Forgetting: try searching the book for yourself and you'll see that the results are less than impressive. Hairhorn (talk) 22:55, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, I'm going with delete. Searching Google books for "Augustinian phenomenology" (even excluding "paulo") delivers a number of valid hits, though many of them are e-Study Guides that amount to nothing. Some of those books, however, talk about the term in quotes. Moreover, JSTOR has next to nothing to offer: two articles, and Daniel Beaumont, "The Modality of Narrative A Critique of Some Recent Views of Narrative in Theology" (Journal of the American Academy of Religion (1997) 65:1, 125-139) mentions the term in "an Augustinian phenomenology of time", which does not establish that there is a well-defined term or concept for our article. (The other article uses the term only to cite Paulo.) There is of course plenty to be said about Augustine's conception of phenomenology, but the article is explicitly about an Augustinian take on phenomenology. This discusses Augustine's phenomenology, and that's not what the article is about. Same with this. Edith Stein's Finite and Eternal Being proposes "a kind of Augustinian phenomenology", but that's "a kind", and it's not the topic of the article, from what I can tell. So, Google Books hits can be deceptive, and I see nothing yet that warrants an article called "Augustinian phenomenology" according to the definition given in the current article. Drmies (talk) 22:57, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Comment. In response to the other editors, I just concluded a google search of the term Augustinian phenomenology and added references to the page, which apparently do not satisfy some of the editors. I also did a WorldCat search, and the term appears at least 218x and the dePaulo's work on the topic appears in 385 libraries worldwide. Frankly, I do not understand the difficulty with this term. Augustinestudent (talk) 23:08, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You need only !vote once. Stalwart111 23:59, 12 June 2013 (UTC) [reply]

I thought I had addressed that above. In a nutshell, "Augustinian phenomenology" is a term that can cover a lot of different things, including, most importantly, Augustine's phenomenology. This article is about a modern concept; it's not about Augustine's phenomenology. I thought I had shown, sufficiently, that a number of hits discuss Augustine's phenomenology using the term "Augustinian phenomenology". That problem (if a problem it is) works on WorldCat the same way it does in Google: WorldCat makes no distinction, in its hits on "Augustinian phenomenology", between "modern inflection of phenomenology using Augustinian existential theology" and "theology according to Augustine". If you can't see or understand that difference, you may want to retake some class or other before signing up for advanced phenomenology, theology, or existentialism. In addition (this needs no argument for the experienced Wikipedia editors) search results by themselves mean very little, since it's a kind of primary research
To make matters worse, you have quite deceitfully made this edit, adding a mention of the term that I signaled above, and which I signaled explicitly as a use of the term that does NOT fit in with the definition outlined in the Wikipedia article under discussion. It is a kind of incomplete citation, and since I explained why it couldn't be used to support your reading of it (and I can be more explicit: it discusses Augustine's phenomenology of time, not Paulo's or some "relatively new" interpretation), it qualifies as an act of intellectual dishonesty, something that I wouldn't tolerate in my classroom, and something Augustine--I am quite sure--wouldn't approve of either. If anything, the man was honest. Drmies (talk) 00:10, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And please be more careful in your citation. You misspelled the title of the Schrijvers article, and you (gasp!) misspelled Pascal's first name. You clearly didn't attend Pascal College, where you would have learned better. Drmies (talk) 00:18, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not dishonesty, but careless latching on to Google hits (to put it mildly): Religious Existentialism: Blais Pascal and Augustine of Hippo (you added it in this edit) is a collection of Wikipedia articles. Drmies (talk) 00:21, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
One more revert, with the help of Google Books. Not our definition. I wash my hands of this affair and this editor: in a classroom situation, this would amount to academic dishonesty and I would inform the provost and the registrar, and assign a failing grade. Drmies (talk) 00:26, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there's an admission this is new, probably WP:TOOSOON. We need significant coverage, not passing mentions (even many passing mentions). Wouldn't object to incubation until significant coverage exists. Stalwart111 23:59, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CommentAs my wiki names states,I am a graduate student in religious history and lover of Augustine, and I am not an expert on Wikipedia. I am simply interested in creating and editing all things related to Augustine, Augustine Scholars, etc. I do no understand why this simply philosophy page is being attacked and why my other pages are also being attacked. Novice here, I do not know all of the protocol, and I need some help! Augustinestudent (talk) 00:54, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't take this personally. In order for Wikipedia to have an article about a subject, it must be significant enough to be worthy of notice (what we call notability). More importantly, for Wikipedia to have an article about a subject, there needs to be a significant amount of coverage by secondary reliable sources so that we have a way to verify everything that is written in the article. If that significant coverage is nonexistent, then the subject is simply not notable for Wikipedia. Of course, that can change if more sources become available in the future, and notability is not temporary. It could simply be too soon for a subject to be considered at this time. I hope this helped. Kind regards, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:45, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per arguments above. It's frustrating to see Drmies' highly academic objections being answered merely with "I do no understand why this simply philosophy page is being attacked", from a graduate student in religious history. Augustinestudent, it would be better if you made an attempt to engage with for instance Drmies' arguments about the distinction between on the one hand the modern concept of Augustinian phenomenology, and on the other Augustine's own phenomenology. That's an academic distinction, the kind that grad students such as yourself typically deal in. It doesn't depend on or refer to any Wikipedia "protocol". Bishonen | talk 04:23, 13 June 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. Merging can be discussed on the talk pages of the articles. --BDD (talk) 19:37, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Electoral history of Alan Keyes

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

~~No reason for this page to be independent of Alan Keyes, recommend merge. UnrepentantTaco (talk) 18:03, 5 June 2013 (UTC)~~ [Edit reverted as per WP:BE and [11]. Unscintillating (talk) 03:08, 24 June 2013 (UTC)][reply]

Comment I have created the redirect to the appropriate section in the main Alan Keyes page, assuming no objections this debate can be closed. UnrepentantTaco (talk) 14:45, 14 June 2013 (UTC) [Edit reverted as per WP:BE and [12]. Unscintillating (talk) 03:08, 24 June 2013 (UTC)][reply]

It's best if you don't redirect articles in the middle of an AfD. The discussion may decide that a redirect is the best outcome, but until the discussion is closed redirection is preempting the outcome. Hut 8.5 17:54, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep subject matter is notable and reliably sourced, too lengthy to merge with Alan Keyes article.--Cjv110ma (talk) 03:52, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per NOTDIRECTORY. This is more or less political fancruft which has the effect of forking the main article. If the exact percentages of this race or that are truly significant, merge them into Alan Keyes. Carrite (talk) 04:18, 6 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 · · 18:42, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Really? Why are we here? This is yet another miss-nomination from an editor who clearly fails to understand guidelines based on dozens of recently contested AfD nominations. This article clearly meets WP:GNG as there are plenty of WP:RS to support the content. Also, the article length would take away from the Alan Keyes article and as such should be independent. If there is ever a case for WP:OTHERSTUFF, this would be one of them. Take a look at the examples here. If it were not for the single delete !vote, this would qualify for Speedy Keep based on criterion #1. AfD is for deletion discussion, not a merger discussion. --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 00:15, 19 June 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. delete as unverifiable achievements , on the basis of Whpq's excellent check. DGG ( talk ) 17:21, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jhonmar Castillo

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

The article claims that Castillo represented Venezuela at the 1988 Summer Olympics but I cannot find any record of him or any Venezuelan diver at that event in the official records of the Games (http://library.la84.org/6oic/OfficialReports/1988/1988v2.pdf). He may well have appeared in various Masters diving championships subsequently but these do not confer notability on their own. Google doesn't have much record of him either except for some news articles about his new career in TV.

I think the article has been bigged up (quite a lot) to meet WP:NSPORTS, by who or why I wouldn't like to comment, although a IP editor added the Olympic "achievement" to the article Venezuela at the 1988 Summer Olympics but not to Diving at the 1988 Summer Olympics – Men's 10 metre platform. NtheP (talk) 16:16, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 6 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 · · 18:39, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - As failing verifiability on the claim for notability as an Olympic platform diver. The Venezuela at the 1988 Summer Olympics article did not mention Castillo until an IP editor added the entry claiming Castillo finished 13th. Interestingly, that person failed to alter Diving at the 1988 Summer Olympics – Men's 10 metre platform which lists Albin Killat as the 13th place finisher and makes no mention of Castillo as even competing. As pointed out in the nomination, Castillo does not appear in the official results from the 1988 Olympics. The results for the men's platform diving starts at page 583; Castillo is not listed as a competitor nor is there even a Venezuelan competitor. A full list of competitor's in alphabetical order by surname is provided starting on page 176 and Castillo should be on page 178 but Jhonmar is not one of the Castillo's listed. I found this article from the Windy City Times which claims he finished 13th. But it appears the reporter did not fact-checking and took the claims at face value. For example the article states "Castillo ultimately finished 13th of about 40 in his event" when only 26 men competed in platform. The only other possible claim to notability is the claim to representing Venezuela in 14 international diving competitions, but no specifics are provided with which to validate against. And given the hokum provided about competing at the Olympics, I'd take this claim with a big block of salt. -- Whpq (talk) 18:36, 13 June 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) czar · · 18:54, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Accommodation for the 2003 Afro-Asian Games

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

Merge with 2003 Afro-Asian Games or delete. No need for separate article like this for a important event. Every details of an event like this should be published under the main article of the said event. Benedictdilton (talk) 18:30, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 30 May 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, Theopolisme (talk) 16:02, 5 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 · · 18:37, 12 June 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. Highly recommend bundling these E. K. Nayanar noms (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/E. K. Nayanar Ministry 1) if renominating in the future. (non-admin closure) czar · · 18:48, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A. K. Antony ministry term 3

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

Should be merged into A. K. Antony or Kerala State or deleted. Benedictdilton (talk) 18:26, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 30 May 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, Theopolisme (talk) 16:02, 5 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 · · 18:36, 12 June 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. Highly recommend bundling these E. K. Nayanar noms (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/E. K. Nayanar Ministry 1) if renominating in the future. (non-admin closure) czar · · 18:48, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A. K. Antony ministry term 2

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

Should be merged into A. K. Antony or Kerala State or deleted. Benedictdilton (talk) 18:25, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 30 May 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, Theopolisme (talk) 16:03, 5 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 · · 18:35, 12 June 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. Highly recommend bundling these E. K. Nayanar noms (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/E. K. Nayanar Ministry 1) if renominating in the future. (non-admin closure) czar · · 18:46, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

E. K. Nayanar Ministry Term 2

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

Should be merged into E K Nayanar or Kerala State or deleted. Benedictdilton (talk) 18:52, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 30 May 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, Theopolisme (talk) 16:01, 5 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 · · 18:33, 12 June 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. Remember that AfD is for deletion only, and noms that only propose non-deletion actions (e.g., merge) are eligible for SK#1. In the future, you can propose what may be a controversial move at Wikipedia:Proposed mergers. Also, I highly recommend bundling these E. K. Nayanar noms (listed below) if renominating in the future.

(non-admin closure) czar · · 18:46, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

E. K. Nayanar Ministry 1

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

Should be merged into E K Nayanar or Kerala State or deleted. Benedictdilton (talk) 18:48, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 30 May 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, Theopolisme (talk) 16:01, 5 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 · · 18:33, 12 June 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) czar · · 18:39, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Undertow Music

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

Listing for lack of notability. Very little media coverage and is a minor hyperlocal music collective. Importantly, Bob Andrews, the owner, created and maintained this page so we are looking t s WP:AUTOBIO problem. User:Highberry and User:Bob Andrews UTOW are both the subject as he admitted in a sockpuppet investigation. Last AfD was procedurally closed so relisting a fresh AfD for consensus. UnrepentantTaco (talk) 19:03, 29 May 2013 (UTC) [Edit reverted as per WP:BE and [13]. Unscintillating (talk) 04:01, 24 June 2013 (UTC)][reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:59, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:59, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:59, 29 May 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, Theopolisme (talk) 15:59, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This company has an important roster of artists, including those nominated for Songwriter of the Year and Album of hte Year in Rolling Stone and Spin magazines. “Album of the Year” and “Songwriter of the Year” ^[2] None of the artists are local to the company, many with an international reputation.Mike McCusker (talk) 06:49, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination(s) to delete Undertow Music page and related pages are baseless per wiki guidelines. The page(s) are not advertising, are not a case study, are neutral and factual, and moreover, the subject (a legitimate humanities organization which partners with international recording artists of note) is verifiably notable. The Undertow wiki pages document the organizations' existence and history, and do so in an encyclopedic manner within wiki standards. Proposal for deletion of the Undertow Music page and related pages potentially compromises the integrity of Wikipedia by facilitating what appears to be an unsubstantiated subjective personal agenda by User Gene93k and User UnrepentantTaco against the Undertow organization. Such misuse of Wikipedia is missing the spirit of Wikipedia, its community, and its policies, and therefore, I move to dismiss proposal for deletion. WritefullySo (talk) 07:31, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The above is WritefullySo's only contribution to Wikipedia, thus far. Dricherby (talk) 23:56, 7 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 · · 18:32, 12 June 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) czar · · 18:38, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Undertow Orchestra

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

Listing AfD for lack of notability. Article is basically a stub from Undertow Music that talks about one tour and is never heard from again. Also, Bob Andrews created this music group and is heavily involved with this page so we have autobio problems. User:Highberry and User:Bob Andrews UTOW are both the subject in question. No real media or google mentions. UnrepentantTaco (talk) 19:10, 29 May 2013 (UTC) [Edit reverted as per WP:BE and [14]. Unscintillating (talk) 03:57, 24 June 2013 (UTC)][reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:02, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:03, 29 May 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, Theopolisme (talk) 15:58, 5 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 · · 18:31, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Coverage of their tour appears in the Chicago Tribune and in the Boston Herald and I've added those sources to the article just now. There also appears to be coverage in Glide Magazine, in the Chicago Sun-Times [15], the Austin American-Statesman [16] and others. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 06:11, 18 June 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. No prejudice towards speedy recreation if there's news that he meets NFOOTBALL. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:06, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Conor Washington

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. PROD contested by the author without providing a reason. – Michael (talk) 18:29, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Michael (talk) 18:32, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 20:08, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage in reliable sources, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:36, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Walls of Jericho (talk) 18:02, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment He appears to play for a League Two club, all of whose current squad (except one) have articles. That looks notable to me, but I do not know football and do not vote on it. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:04, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He hasn't played a fully pro league match nor has he capped for a senior national team. Therefore, he's still not notable. – Michael (talk) 23:54, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Incubate It's highly likely that this player will meet WP:NFOOTY in August. There seems to be little point in letting the effort that's put into this article thus far go to waste (cf. WP:DEMOLISH). A keep may even be appropriate per WP:IAR. --BDD (talk) 19:45, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable yet, as he fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY, and we don't know if he will play once the season starts in August. The effort wont go to waste as the article can be recreated with a click of a buttom once he becomes notable. Mentoz86 (talk) 03:29, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on who's making the article. An experienced user will probably know to contact an administrator to have this page restored. A less experienced user might just make a new article. --BDD (talk) 15:07, 20 June 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. --BDD (talk) 19:46, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Life Assembly

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

Despite a few mentions in the local media, I don't think this local church is itself notable per our guidelines at WP:ORG. Specifically, I don't think the church is notable enough for an encyclopedia article because its steeple fell down, see WP:NOTNEWS, and the other news items are about other people or events that happen to be connected with the church. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:27, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This church has received far more coverage than is required by our notability guidelines. In addition to the two books and eight newspaper articles currently cited in the article, a quick Google News search reveals plenty of potential sources for this article. Neelix (talk) 18:40, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This same editor (Neelix) has also created another church article that is similarly non-notable but over-cited on trivial matters Five Stones Church, and has defended it pointing to the Stanford Memorial Church's inclusion of the same kind of event-calendar type info as if that was why it was notable, and why it made Featured Article, when clearly the comparison between a local new church and a major university's cathedral-like and historic structure was valid, which it clearly isn't. I placed spam and notability templates on that article, and on a paired/related article Heritage Grill, which he peremptorily removed, saying that his citations were fine and because he thought they were notable, they are; I replaced them, and he has since been defending both articles on their talkpages, and challenging me to an AfD I haven't had time (or patience/energy) to launch. That this is similarly non-notable and for many of the same reasons and is the same kind of non-notable article/organization and this AfD resonates with my question about why he's so ardently presenting these churches as notable, when they're clearly not in relation to many much more notable churches, including in the city (New Westminster) which have several on the heritage register and are highly signficant, but have no articles. Not just notability is an issue here, but spam of a certain kind, and as I point out on the Five Stones Church talkpage, how it is that someone in distant Nova Scotia decides that obscure new churches in BC are notable "oh I just found them, I thought they were interesting" is being both coy and disingenuous. He's been challenging me to AfDs there, in the meantime I've spent my energies improving the New Westminster article and preparing needed subarticles, after having taken out his plugging of them on the city page. Not just WP:N, but WP:SPAM and questionable and rather trivial sources especially in the case of the New Westminster item where they're advertorial in nature. And an imputation of COI which he denies but it's a denial I find highly dubious. Wikipedia is not a community bulletin board, nor is it to be used for promotional purposes, and that's the only reason, in my opinion, these articles were created. I venture that a review of his other recent creations may demonstrate a similar pattern.Skookum1 (talk) 18:57, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I've now listed Five Stones Church and Heritage Grill for AFD as well. It does trouble me that the author seems to have created these articles only because of their tenuous connections with Tara Teng an article which itself seems extremely promotional. NawlinWiki (talk) 14:48, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not sure that some of those news reports are sufficient to establish notability. They look to me to be the type that tends to report all local news because that's what readers want. It's as if I wrote an article on our local community hall because all the funerals and community events are held there. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 19:43, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of sources for this article; surely these are sufficient to pass our general notability guideline. Neelix (talk) 15:45, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- - Comment Those are all only the kinds of non-notable community news that does not establish notability, of the exact kind the CambridgeBayWeather is saying do not count. You should read WP:N again.Skookum1 (talk) 15:57, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - That is not true. See, for example, [17] and [18]. There are plenty of Google Books hits as well. Neelix (talk) 17:19, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - The land deal is not relevant news to establish notability, the review/advertorial by the Sun's religion reporter is also not valid to establish notability. His job is to write promotional pieces. As for the googelbooks, self-referential cites from the evangelical movement are questionable and also do not establish notability....WP:SPAM citations. Part of a media and publishing campaign for a particular faith, little more. Notability is not about applause by believers and is not established by books written by them. Or Wikipedia articles, either.Skookum1 (talk) 18:04, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        I see nothing in the relevant guidelines to suggest that these sources are not valid for establishing notability, as you have suggested. If the two articles I mention above are not considered valid, I cannot imagine a source that would be valid. Neelix (talk) 03:31, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete For me this falls under WP:BRANCH but it also has some very worry-some elements of WP:SPAM. In regards to the references and even the general information, it has so little 'appeal' that WP:LOCAL must come into play. Mkdw ^talk 04:59, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the issue is WP:BRANCH, surely a merger is more appropriate than deletion. Neelix (talk) 15:45, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Other issues are brought up in that proposal are WP:BALANCE and WP:COI and WP:NOTDIR of church buildings associated with an organization in Vancouver. If we had list articles for every church it's an indiscriminate list. Mkdw ^talk 21:22, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of places of worship in Brighton and Hove is a featured list and plenty of its entries do not have their own articles; this isn't an indiscriminate list. Surely a merger to List of places of worship in Greater Vancouver would be appropriate. Neelix (talk) 03:25, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't lead off with an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument especially when the two lists you are comparing are in my opinion, not with in the same ballpark. I have nominated your recently created list for AFD as well under WP:NOTDIR. I would like to point out that the buildings listed at List of places of worship in Brighton and Hove are "Statutory List of Buildings of Special Architectural or Historic Interest" -- essentially historic heritage buildings -- recognized by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and even protected under government acts such as the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 with buildings dating back to the 1780s and plenty in the 1800s. The newly created list you have made is simply a loosely created list of any place of worship and not seemingly grouped together except for the first time by you on Wikipedia and arguably closing in on WP:SYNTHESIS. If you think it should be merged you should change your !vote instead of bargaining for me to change my !vote to one you do not believe in. Considering the article exists, for now, I would support a redirect at best with prejudice in re-creating an article that attempts establish notability of a BRANCH building or organization using run of the mill coverage. Mkdw ^talk 06:43, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I just had a look at the references. If the two books used as citations are by congregation members they're self-referential and not valid at all as citations. The 1980 Vancouver Sun article is not a link, can't be reviewed, and the content that it's used to cite seems to be misleading about what that article appears to be about, i.e. trivial bit of information about a land deal that there were political questions about re Langley. And what also got my attention was Tara Teng, who is plugged also on Five Stones Church and Heritage Grill (or was, until I removed material on the latter about film screenings (which may have been restored, I don't know) and so I went and looked at her article. Definitely notable as a Miss Canada, but very much an overwritten article with lots of non-notable content and a plethora of cites.....and except for maybe ten, all the edits since that article was created only this last March 28, 2013, were by User:Neelix. My issue about apparent COI is thereby underscored, as these articles were all created and on the same themes and religious affiliation, and the Tara Teng article is, in my opinion, overblown, though it's so long WP:TLDNR.Skookum1 (talk) 09:11, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Neelix (talk) 17:04, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Lack of signficant coverage in multiple independent secondary sources. The only mentions I can find are mentions in the local press of a trivial, tangential or routine nature, usually based on the groups own press releases and publicity materials, and books by non-independent members of the group. There seems to be some puffery and source massaging going on, as well as blatant promotion. As such, the topic falls far short of any of out notability guidelines. Nothing worth saving or merging. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:32, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete On the rule side: There is a lack of significant coverage in independent secondary sources. On the common sense side: There is nothing in the article that would suggest notability. --Bejnar (talk) 08:39, 17 June 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) 05:56, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Veerpura State

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

could not find any sources for Veerpura State. Article not referenced created by a blocked user. State means a Princely State no such princely state existed in British India. This is WP:OR or should I say WP:HOAX? - Jethwarp (talk) 09:01, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jethwarp (talk) 14:15, 5 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 · · 18:24, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Having searched under every spelling conceivable, I can scarcely find evidence for the existence of the town, let alone the state. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 18:37, 12 June 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:08, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Atherton (musician)

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

fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSICBIO. created probably by himself Michael Atherton (talk · contribs) this is a blatant WP:AUTOBIO. also there is a famous cricketer by the same name as Mike Atherton, so not sure why this article gets naming preference over the more famous Atherton. LibStar (talk) 00:07, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Certainly looks like COI, but that is no reason to delete. Subject appears to have achieved some prominence in the Australian musical scene. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:25, 4 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Keep (giving benefit of the doubt for source; a quote would be nice:) -- entry in Oxford Companion to Australian Music is sufficient. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 13:58, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Michael Atherton (musician) at put a link at the top of the Mike Atherton page to him. Even Australians will not think of him as the most important Mike Atherton. Barney the barney barney (talk) 09:52, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As long as the cricketer consistently goes by "Mike" and not "Michael" we don't need to make such a redirect, though I don't think it's a big deal either way. But keeping to the discussion at hand, should we take your comment Barney as a Keep vote with a request for move after keeping? -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 16:26, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

you will see numerous cricket related articles link to Michael Atherton. LibStar (talk) 16:30, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the case I change my opinion on the move. But definitely not the Keep vote. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 22:08, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think the Centenary Medal (at least when given for accomplishments rather than age) is enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:20, 9 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, SarahStierch (talk) 18:23, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Looks like COI, no reason to delete Kabirat (talk) 08:08, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep and move. I can't see any evidence that this meets WP:GNG, WP:BAND or WP:ACADEMIC, but the Centenary Medal is probably enough to satisfy WP:ANYBIO. COI is neither here nor there as far as deletion is concerned. Move because the vast majority of Google and Google News hits for "Michael Atherton", and most wikilinks to this article, are about the cricketer. It should also be noted that an earlier version made a better case for notability and included a couple of references before the subject removed most of the content. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 23:10, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I've taken it back to that version, made some minor improvements and added tags for citation to give contributors an idea where better references are required. All very strange.Deb (talk) 11:50, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as expanded. Combination of his role in forming a department at a university and his compositions. And, in particular, he's a fellow of the Royal Society of Arts, which we have generally accepted as a significant factor towards notability. DGG ( talk ) 17:19, 20 June 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) 18:10, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sonic Man

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

It pains me to do this as a Charlottean, but I don't think this is notable enough for a standalone article. HangingCurve^{Swing for the fence} 22:58, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 21 May 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, J04n(talk page) 12:28, 27 May 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, L Faraone 00:36, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO and WP:ENT. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:44, 4 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, SarahStierch (talk) 18:18, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete local program on a local station, no sugnificant references. DGG ( talk ) 17:14, 20 June 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 21:00, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alice Fryer Hall

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

I don;t see anything notable here. Local figure with a local award. 'DGG (at NYPL) (talk) 20:45, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (parlez) @ 21:32, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (gossip) @ 21:32, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Historically significant individual in Zephyrhills. Covered substantially as such in reliable sources and the recipient of a significant award from the State. Candleabracadabra (talk) 21:52, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meet notability requirements. Notability does not have to be national or international.Thelmadatter (talk) 23:38, 28 May 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) 00:56, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Subject is of only local importance. Award cannot reasonably be described as major. Fails notability tests as per WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. Just because someone existed and did nice things that got them mentioned in the local paper does not make them notable. The key word when discussing secondary source coverage is "significant." -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:35, 4 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, SarahStierch (talk) 18:17, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: - I've found nothing on web pages. The article has only 3 sources and one of them covers the subject in passing. I watch the article and this discussion so if the creator finds more reliable sources I will change my vote.Farhikht (talk) 10:17, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree that she was an important individual in Zephyrhills, and hence she may have some local notability. I do not think that she was historically significant in Zephyrhills based on the available sources. However, she fails the significant coverage test. I note that the Zephyrhills, Florida article lacks a history section. --Bejnar (talk) 08:31, 17 June 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, consensus that the nomination has no merit. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 21:16, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No judgement from me on the inclusion or removal of individual entries, which can be resolved on the article talk page. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 21:18, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of American death metal bands

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

WP:CONTENTFORK and overlaps with List of death metal bands. Categorization of politics is irrelevant to music and even if necessary a stand alone list/article is not necessary. Formatting of the broader article is all that is needed. American death metal is also not a genre. Curb Chain (talk) 01:03, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Politics"? This is obviously a sublist by nationality, which is a rather obvious way to subdivide any group of people. As for your second curious statement, the list's basis is that the death metal band is American, not that these bands play "American death metal", as should be obvious from Category:Death metal musical groups by nationality being the parent category of Category:American death metal musical groups (if not the article itself, which explains in the intro that it's for bands from the USA). Of course it overlaps with List of death metal bands, but it's not just a duplicate, as that link is just a set index as the list of all death metal bands worldwide is so long it's been subdivided into two separate lists. postdlf (talk) 01:36, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- But it still violates WP:CONTENTFORK as the information is more clearer, and most importantly, useful, on merged with that page, if needed.Curb Chain (talk) 03:34, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please elaborate, and on which "page" do you mean? As I already pointed out, there is no one single page. postdlf (talk) 03:48, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Both pages.Curb Chain (talk) 05:26, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - ...and why shouldn't we also have sublists divided by nationality, just like we categorize them? How is it "more clear and useful" to only have all death metal bands the whole world over lumped together, in an alphabetized list so massive it had to be split in two? That's what I hoped you would "elaborate" on. postdlf (talk) 05:40, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Per WP:LISTN, it is not notable.Curb Chain (talk) 07:30, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        It's a bit obnoxious to keep flitting to another, new rationale every time the one you had just posted gets challenged, instead of actually responding to the questions posed. Am I to infer from this that you've abandoned all of your previous arguments?
        Even if it were plausible that American death metal music was not itself a notable topic, WP:LISTN isn't relevant here anyway, but instead WP:LISTPURP, as this is a completely ordinary navigational list of articles grouped by nationality. postdlf (talk) 15:22, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        
        So then every list of (insert genre here) artists should be forked into their respective polity? What about artists who come from several polities, or if they identify as from several polities?Curb Chain (talk) 06:58, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        
        To answer your question about sublists divided by nationality, there are cases where the individuals in music groups, and not individual artists, have citizenship different from one another. Such a list will would be pointless and selfcontradictory especially when sources are added.Curb Chain (talk) 07:18, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Curb Chain, please reread what I just said about flitting around to different arguments instead of actually responding to the comments others have just made. This is a poor way to conduct a discussion.
        On your belated return to your initial complaint about this list being subdivided by nationality, I'll only say that it's rather ridiculous to be challenging the very notion of identifying a band's nationality just because there might be a few more complicated cases involving band members of differing nationalities. That hardly invalidates the whole enterprise, and such classification is standard across band articles and categories: see Category:Musical groups by nationality and its 154 subcategories. There is nothing unique about the nationality of death metal bands that would apply to this list specifically. postdlf (talk) 20:05, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Categories are a wholly different mechanism that we do not deal with here. There nothing flitting with this rebuttal as much as your argument is offtopic to this discussion.Curb Chain (talk) 01:06, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        
        And to apply the category guidelines to this article which currently is very applicable as there is no action to provide references, WP:DEFINING specifically WP:OC#NARROW, Wikipedia:OC#Intersection by ___location. WP:IINFO is the closest article protocol that is related to this (sort of) page.Curb Chain (talk) 01:35, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        I mentioned the categories because determining a band's nationality is the same issue regardless of whether we do that for a list or for a category. It's the same assertion of fact, and the well-developed category structure centered on that fact shows we consider it a standard practice. I have little idea what your other comment is trying to say, not that it matters at this point, but I can tell you that in the category context, the nationality of a person or group of people, if determinable, is always considered defining, as evidenced by many years of CFDs on the issue. postdlf (talk) 16:53, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of lists over categories is that they can be sourced. Back to the argument of conflating politics, see the label "international" here. Clearly there's no rules as to determine the political affiliation of an artist or band members in question so such a reliably sourced list is moot per WP:LISTN. Unfortunately, we don't have people who work in this area commenting otherwise these ignorant and uninformed !keeps would not be derailing this AfD.Curb Chain (talk) 20:01, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Perfectly valid list. All notable entries about a notable topic (WP:SALAT). The Swedish category could also become a list too, and the lists could be expanded into a table format. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 06:33, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- List of Swedish death metal bands actually links to a genre of music. This list does not.Curb Chain (talk) 07:30, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - The ironic thing here with this list (that's in question here at this AfD) is that it was apparently "created as a protest against" that very same list of Swedish metal bands in 2009...whatever that means. FYI, I've updated/corrected the list in question here. There's really nothing wrong with it, besides maybe it needing a few references. Not every band needs a reference though, since one can just click on the band's Wiki-link to see plenty of documentation on what kind of band they actually are. Guy1890 (talk) 20:04, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, list articles do need references because precisely that they have the advantage of allowing reference with our current technology.Curb Chain (talk) 06:49, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Is it wrong to provide references for every listing on a particular list? Surely not, but it's also not always required, especially when the list is of something as obvious as whether a death metal band was originally formed in the United States. Guy1890 (talk) 21:25, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        This article is neither an outline nor an index. Such, references are required.Curb Chain (talk) 01:13, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Confer what I said before: there is a CLEAR distinction between Swedish death metal and Swedish death metal. List of Nordic Countries death metal bands was renamed precisely for this reason. I can't see how you can compare this list with that as this list violates WP:LISTN and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.Curb Chain (talk) 06:58, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yea, Swedish death metal is a basically a sub-genre of death metal. This list in question here (a simple listing of death metal bands that were formed in the USA) violates absolutely nothing, period. This AfD is going nowhere. Guy1890 (talk) 21:25, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Dividing things out by nationality, in addition to keeping a full agglomerated list is perfectly reasonable. For example, we have List of inventors, in addition to List of Swiss inventors and discoverers, List of German inventors and discoverers, etc. It makes navigation easier, which is the entire point of lists. Grandmartin11 (talk) 16:21, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- There are cases where the individuals in music groups, and not individual artists, have citizenship different from one another. Such a list will would be pointless and selfcontradictory especially when sources are added.Curb Chain (talk) 07:18, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Great, now show us some actual examples of what you cite above from the list that's under consideration here. Oh wait, it really doesn't matter, because, of course, this list is simply a list of death metal bands that were originally formed in the USA. Guy1890 (talk) 21:28, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Without sources. I guess I should start making a List of Tasmanian death metal bands as well!Curb Chain (talk) 01:14, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Hey, if you can find more than one death metal band from Australia, (HINT: You can) then have at it! I look forward to the administrator "close as Keep" to this AfD very soon now. Guy1890 (talk) 03:49, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        By your argumentum ad absurdum, every category should have an article. This clearly is not the case and is redundant and duplicative.Curb Chain (talk) 07:55, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm done arguing with you other than to say you should read WP:CLN (and probably also reread every policy and guideline you've cited yourself). And stop making other people fix your improper indenting; your reply to someone's comment should not be lined up with what you're responding to. postdlf (talk) 16:16, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my comments above and above keeps. Truly a confused and ultimately indefensible deletion nomination. postdlf (talk) 15:22, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Author of the page here, more well-adjusted than I used to be, and incredibly embarassed that I've been contacted about some of the petty shit I did on here back when I was 16. Ironically enough, though, despite my initial, ridiculously butthurt reason for creating this page, it seems like it's actually perfectly legitimate as an article, judging by the arguments above. LordNecronus (talk) 15:05, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Update With only 10 entries, I see little point in forking out a separate article from the List of death metal bands lists (List of death metal bands, !–K List of death metal bands, L–Z) since an indepth discussion is not warranted.Curb Chain (talk) 07:16, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow...so, you spend the better part of 3 days preemptively removing almost all of the collective work that took almost 4 years to create on the list in question, just to try & get your way in this doomed AfD?? Talk about disruptive editing...that's really unbelievable. Can someone with the proper editing authority please undo all of this guy's recent edits with the edit summaries labelled "already on List of death metal bands, !–K. List of death metal bands, !–K can be made into a more detailed list like those on WP:FL"? Guy1890 (talk) 09:05, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've reverted. Clearly disruptive to purge a list as having duplicate entries when that very argument is being rejected here. See if you can improve the list further anyway to safeguard against more rash judgment. postdlf (talk) 14:11, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - I've done so and no arguement has made that lists are immune to WP:BURDEN. And take a look at WP:FL for lists which incorporate the information on this list and the parent lists (List of death metal bands, !–K and List of death metal bands, L–Z) to see how this is an unnecessary article and fork of List of death metal bands.Curb Chain (talk) 02:14, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Let me translate the above "response" for all to see here clearly. Curb Chain has basically reverted the article again to contain less than 10 band names. We're officially and unnecessarily in an edit war it seems. I do not engage in edit warring. Note to closing administrator - This discussion (and a basic lack of non-deceptive discussion here) should be referred to the proper authorities for possible disciplinary action against this user after a close of this AfD, which is hopefully coming soon (since the consensus to keep the article in question here is pretty clear at this late date). These kind of blatant, disruptive actions cannot, IMHO, be tolerated. Guy1890 (talk) 03:35, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you post at WP:ANI, request closure of this AFD, reversion and maybe protection against Curb Chain's blanking, and a discussion of his disruption. How he's conducted himself in this discussion is bad enough, but to blank most of the list on a rationale that this AFD has rejected is beyond the pale. The "burden" claim is also nonsense given that he doesn't have a good faith doubt that these are actually death metal bands; he's just trying to "win" this AFD. postdlf (talk) 14:23, 12 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, SarahStierch (talk) 18:14, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:CLN (part of WP:LISTPURP), as well as a large dose of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:BATTLEGROUND from the nominator. As a subset of a large stand-alone list, WP:LISTN doesn't apply. Note that this list and associated category also don't fall under WP:OVERCAT. Not sure why this was relisted and not closed. Ansh666 20:11, 12 June 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. ^King Jakob _C2 16:43, 15 June 2013 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Shawn Stiffler

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

Subject fails to meet notability as per WP:BIO, WP:WPBB/N and WP:NCOLLATH. References are all primary sources. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:16, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. czar · · 07:14, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. czar · · 07:14, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Subject is a Division I college coach. These are notable, and indpendent sources exist. Billcasey905 (talk) 13:29, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree Division I Coach does not meet notability criteria. News coverage is clearly routine. See WP:NCOLLATH. Just because someone exists and has been mentioned in the press as part of routine coverage of a broader topic, in this case college sports, does not make them notable. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:41, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The the section header, language of the three criteria, and edit history all indicate to me that WP:NCOLLATH is geared much more heavily towards players than coaches, so I'm hesitant to use it as anything more than a loose guideline for this discussion.

Keep per previous WikiProjects' consensus (WP:CFB, WP:CBBALL) that Division I head coaches for football, men's basketball and baseball (current or historical) are notable. Jrcla2 (talk) 17:56, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Jrcla2's point. In general, I don't think sources are a great measure of notability for baseball coach articles (whether a journalist has decided to feature the coach shouldn't determine notability), especially when the coach in question has taken on his position so recently. (That said, he received a not insignificant amount of coverage with Keyes's death.) A compromise I'd be willing to explore is to use NCAA berths (and the media coverage that comes with them) as a mark of notability for mid-major and low-major coaches– single bids for present-day coaches and multiple bids for historic coaches. Kithira (talk) 03:52, 5 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, SarahStierch (talk) 18:13, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Head coach on a permanent basis of a Division I team in a major sport. By all rational standards that';s notability. (If he headremainedinterim coach, I would have said delete). DGG ( talk ) 05:40, 15 June 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. As always, merging can be discussed on the talk page. --BDD (talk) 19:55, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bernice Madigan

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

I'm fixing the nomination for this page, as the previous version seemed to be a cut and paste from the talk page of her article. (You can see the discussion on this page here.) From what I can see, the argument seems to be whether or not being a supercentenarian is enough for notability. I have no personal opinion on this and I'm endorsing neither side, I'm just fixing the nomination so it will show up correctly in AfD. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:35, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: DogsHeadFalls is the one who started the AfD process. I found that there are two AfDs open, so I'm merging everything to the first attempt at AfD and deleting the second AfD entry. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:39, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yet another note to closing admin: The original editor, DogsHeadFalls, is currently being investigated for sockpuppetry here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 21:06, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Final note to closing admin: DogsHeadFalls and 8 other sockpuppets have now been blocked for sock-puppetry. An admin can decide whether this should remain open in light of that fact. Stalwart111 04:53, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I don't see how Madigan requires an article of her own, when she is mentioned in lists of the oldest people as the 2nd oldest American. There aren't many references available out her, and she is not the oldest American.— Preceding unsigned comment added by DogsHeadFalls (talk • contribs) 02:40, 29 May 2013‎ Striking sock-puppet !vote. Stalwart111 04:53, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: She is listed in oldest living Americans by state. If we have an article for the oldest person in a state, then every person in that list needs an article. Otherwise, she does not merit a Wikipedia article.....until she becomes the oldest living American. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.153.190.3 (talk) 20:16, 29 May 2013 (UTC) Striking sock-puppet !vote. Stalwart111 04:53, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and leave history and protected redirect for now: Meets WP:SIGCOV but also qualifies as WP:ONEEVENT, so merge into an appropriate list-article. Since she has a good shot at eventually becoming the oldest American, there is no need to delete the article history. Un-protect when the two people ahead of her die OR she becomes notable for some other reason. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:08, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. czar · · 07:10, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. czar · · 07:10, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I believe that a fundamental misunderstanding of guidelines and policies underlie this article's consideration for deletion. It is mentioned that Madigan may not "require an article of her own," but there is no such thing as content that is required to exist other than that which specifies Wikipedia's core content policies, and any content may be created that adheres to existing policies and guidelines. In other words, there is no policy that states that editors must be parsimonious in the number of separate articles they create (indeed, the opposite is encouraged). Please read WP:DISCRIMINATE and Wikipedia:IINFO for clarification. It is therefore likewise fallacious to assume that the potential existence of any other number of articles obviates existing content (e.g. an article for the oldest person in every state). This is backwards rationalization; again, there is no necessity to create articles (any policy-adherent content may be created), only guidelines and policies to which any article must adhere. I encourage everyone to read WP:N; "On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a topic can have its own article. ... A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets the general notability guideline below. ... 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." Also, please read WP:! for further clarification. As I mentioned in the talk page, WP:1E is erroneously applied in this case; it refers to one event not one aspect or special quality of an individual's life. For example, "one event" might be a car chase for which an individual received media coverage. Supercentenarians are notable for being supercentenarians (i.e. 110 or more years old), and their coverage in reliable sources stems from this fact, not from any single event per se; The supercentenarians article and the related lists are not articles about a notable event. Inclusion in a stand-alone list is also irrelevant as there is no guideline implying that such inclusion obviates a stand-alone article. It's worth repeating that WP:1E would be equally misapplied to a Medal of Honor recipient, each of whom have their own stand-alone article (there are 3,000 such articles), or List of astronauts by name (there are 600 stand-alone articles). Also, please read WP:AFD very carefully. Thanks! Taurus (talk) 12:09, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Google search results for "Bernice Madigan"- http://www.google.com/search?q=bernice+madigan It is my opinion that this recently closed deletion discussion was reopened in error as there is no basis in policy or guidelines for deletion.Taurus (talk) 12:17, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A better Google web search would be "bernice madigan" -wiki -pedia -wikipedia -site:iberkshires.com which still gets over 1200 results. The question is, now many of these are "trivial," how many are "not independent" (one or more of the top-10 or top-20 is by a family member), and how many if any are truly examples of independent, significant coverage? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:01, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Interpretations of notability guidelines that would permit this article to remain stand alone would be so liberal as to put AfD out of business and turn Wikipedia into a more or less indescribable collection of knowledge. Applying the same interpretation as above I would be able to post an article on my favorite pizza parlor which has in fact been mentioned on a number of occasions in the press and media. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:46, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Change Delete to Merge On consideration I have edited my previous comment to merge. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:49, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:N, WP:1E, WP:!, WP:DISCRIMINATE, Wikipedia:IINFO, and WP:BLP very carefully. Thanks. Taurus (talk) 19:11, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As an addendum, I'd like to urge you to be impartial toward the subject of the article per se, and not trivialize this individual. Again, the issue at hand is not whether any editor thinks that an elderly woman is more fascinating or interesting than a Medal of Honor recipient, or astronaut, but whether or not this stand-alone article's existence violates policy such that it should be deleted or merged (rather than, say, improved). Please also read WP:AFD. Taurus (talk) 19:11, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment regarding presumption of notability - "presumption of notability" is not the same as "notability." Taking the plain-English meaning, "presumption of" means "you can safely assume that... until evidence shows up to say otherwise." I'll use an example from WikiProject Schools: There once was a de facto presumption that high schools that confer a secondary diploma ("12th grade graduation") are notable. However, this presumption can be countered by evidence that a school is not notable - or more precisely, it can be countered by a diligent search for significant coverage independent of the source that comes up empty. Over time, the "presumption of notability" for high schools was refined and now it applies to "conventional"/"comprehensive" high schools but not to "special purpose" schools unless they offer similar "press-generating" things like sports teams that conventional high schools typically offer. This effectively excludes adult-ed high schools, alternative-discipline-assignment high schools, high schools in hospitals and other low-press-coverage settings, etc. from the "presumption of notability." Now, all of this may be irrelevant with respect to Ms. Madigan, as her notability will be based on 1) whether she meets WP:GNG, WP:BIO, or another criteria, and 2) whether there is a consensus that "merely getting a lot of press coverage just because you reached 110 years of age (or some other arbitrary cutoff)" does NOT qualify you for an article in spite of meeting existing notability requirements (see comment immediately below). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:49, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on people who on the face of things meet WP:GNG but who don't qualify for articles: Many sub-state-level politicians get significant coverage from reliable sources but by long time consensus they don't get an article if the only coverage is "local." I'm not sure what the equivalent "excluded from SIGCOV" would be for those who reach 110 years in age would be, but it's probably best discussed in a wikiproject, not here. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:49, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A Google News search [19] showed that most or all coverage was local or possibly regional. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:53, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable [20] [21] as part of the Archon X Prize. She has appeared on ABC news, featured in AARP Magazine, filmed for the Center for aging at the University of Chicago, participated in several scientific studies on aging [22], and received some international attention [23].--I am One of Many (talk) 08:35, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Oldest living white person in the world, one of the 100 oldest women ever, oldest person born in Massachusetts...I don't understand why we can't have an article about her!--Dakota86x (talk) 19:49, 9 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, SarahStierch (talk) 18:12, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per above, seems to pass notability guideline. Royal Mate1 19:21, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I will make my case with a question: Despite everything discussed above, why does Madigan(the third oldest living American) get a page when the 2nd oldest living American, Susannah Mushatt Jones does not have a page. She did, but it got deleted for the reason that she was not the oldest American. Why are Bernice Madigan and Soledad Mexia any different? Delete until/if she becomes the oldest American/person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.75.218.22 (talk) 02:46, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The point I made in the talk section of this article was that Susannah Mushatt Jones's article shouldn't have been deleted in the first place. "Not being the oldest American" is relevant only insofar as it relates to WP:N. Few of the people on the list of astronauts by name have landed on the moon, and many have in fact never even crossed into space, but each has an article. Regardless, it is difficult to imagine that the notability associated with being the fourth oldest living person among a population of over 7 billion does not justify an individual article here. Blacksun1942 (talk) 11:18, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In WP:PEOPLE a notable person should be "worthy of notice" – that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded". I believe that being one of the top 10 oldest people among over 6 billion is interesting and unusual. The basic criteria for a notable person are "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." Her notability is her age, which is validate in a reliable source:

Gerontology Research Group

A short interview comes from another reliable source:

Archon X Prize

And finally from:

I suspect that there are other reliable sources out there that are not on the Internet, but I believe that it is reasonable to conclude that the criteria for notability have been satisfied in this case.--I am One of Many (talk) 18:33, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

comment i think being one of only 9 living people in the whole world born in the 1800's makes notability a no-brainer.--66.7.139.222 (talk) 15:36, 14 June 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) czar · · 18:29, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Belair National Bank

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

This article, along with the Citizens National Bank (Laurel, Maryland) article, are only a couple of sentences long and aren't notable enough to keep on Wikipedia. I propose deleting both of them and redirecting them to PNC Financial Services, who acquired both banks. Jgera5 (talk) 15:58, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm combining this debate with that of Citizens National Bank (Laurel, Maryland), since both debates had identical rationales, and both (to date) had one identical Keep !vote. Both were also not listed until today, so combining them does not short-change one or the other articles in so far as their time at AFD is concerned - both have a full debate starting on this date. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 19:27, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Easily passes both WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Toddst1 (talk) 16:52, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have completed Steps 2 and 3, and have listed this debate in the log for 20 May 2013. Please take that date into consideration when closing. Thanks. No comment on the merits, but see also the related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Citizens National Bank (Laurel, Maryland). UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 19:19, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

merge Since Citizens acquired Belair, merge into Citizens. Just enough material to justify an article between the two of them. DGG ( talk ) 03:11, 25 May 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, L Faraone 00:46, 28 May 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 06:05, 4 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, SarahStierch (talk) 18:10, 12 June 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) czar · · 18:27, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Emir Bayghazin

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

No assertion of notability, following a contested "prod". The Rambling Man (talk) 21:10, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kazakhstan-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (state the obvious) @ 22:41, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (shout) @ 22:41, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep US Embassy of the Republic of Kazakhstan website in DC features "Kazakhstan's Emir Baygazin movie got Berlinale World Cinema Fund prize. Tengrinews" Jan 18 2013: ... this is notable. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:14, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also wondering what "a contested "prod" means. Unsourced articles are proded, other editors come along and add sources. Then the unsourced prod tag becomes non-applicable. There is no "contested prod" because the prod tag was correctly added, correctly sourced, and correctly removed. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:24, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Anyone can legitimately remove a PROD tag without explanation or any other changes being made to an article. It is unlike other tags in that regard. The term "contested prod" is fairly common parlance to indicate that a PROD was added and then removed. It gives some background to why the nominator has come to an AfD, but it doesn't count against the article or anything. The AfD still only judges the article as it now is. Bondegezou (talk) 08:47, 28 May 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 · · 06:47, 4 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, SarahStierch (talk) 18:05, 12 June 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 -- Y not? 14:47, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Schneider

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

She's not notable. Jerzeykydd (talk) 02:07, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (gas) @ 08:42, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (whisper) @ 08:42, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm trying to find what these books she's supposed to have written are: I think it's

World public order of the environment: towards an international ecological law and organization (University of Toronto Press, 1979)[24]

Summary Report to the United Nations Environment Programme: Signing Session of the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, 6-10 December 1982[25]

But there's no evidence it's the same Jan Schneider. She might manage to pass WP:GNG but I'm not 100% sure. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:14, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

She really hasn't done anything that is notable. I mean not everyone can have a wikipedia page. Let's use some common sense here: just because a few articles mentioned her doesn't mean she's a notable person. She lost the election. She hasn't done anything extremely newsworthy in her lifetime.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 16:17, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Significant coverage in reliable sources seems to exist; there are are a couple of references currently in the article and more accessible on Google News. See also WP:JNN. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 23:08, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Florida's 13th congressional district#Election Results, subject has received coverage from non-primary reliable sources in connection to the two elections which the subject was a candidate for. The subject has not received significant coverage outside of these two events, and fails WP:POLITICIANS. Per WP:POLOUTCOMES the normal course of action is to redirect the article to the event where the subject received the significant coverage for; as no article exist for either race which the subject was a candidate for, a redirect to the election results will suffice.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:12, 3 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 · · 07:03, 4 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, SarahStierch (talk) 18:05, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Florida's 13th congressional district#Election Results per RightCowLeftCoast. Enos733 (talk) 21:10, 17 June 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. SarahStierch (talk) 17:27, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Workmanship

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

Just a dictionary definition. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:24, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. 069952497a^{Comments and complaints}_{Stuff I've done} 00:30, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Handicraft. Workmanship and craftmanship are close enough to be redirected to the same place, and the latter thing is a redirect to handicraft. Nyttend (talk) 02:00, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Workmanship and craftsmanship aren't even close to synonymous to handicraft. Craftsmanship actually redirects to Artisan, and I disagree with that too. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:09, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's funny — Craftmanship and Craftsmanship have different targets. I think I'll send them to RFD together for input. Nyttend (talk) 02:11, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The nomination displays such poor workmanship that it should be speedily closed as frivolous. It makes the vaguest of waves towards policy without providing any evidence or cogent argument. The current draft doesn't actually look anything like a dictionary entry as there is no lexical content: no etymology, no grammar, no spelling, no quotations or examples of use. We can therefore only suppose that the basis of the nomination is that the current draft is short. But our WP:DICDEF policy explicitly says that shortness is not a valid test for this: "Another perennial source of confusion is that some paper dictionaries, such as "pocket" dictionaries, lead editors to the mistaken belief that dictionary entries are short, and that short article and dictionary entry are therefore equivalent. ... Note that dictionary entries and encyclopedia articles do not differ simply on grounds of length."

It seems obvious that no attempt has been made to follow WP:BEFORE as it takes no time to find good sources for this topic which demonstrate its notability and provide a basis for further work. I shall now list some to hammer home the point:

Art and Workmanship
Defective Workmanship
Modern man and his instinct of workmanship.
On Workmanship: A Lecture
Removing barriers to pride in workmanship
Rural crafts of England: a study of skilled workmanship
The Instinct of Workmanship and the State of the Industrial Arts
The instinct of workmanship and the will to work
The Nature and Art of Workmanship
Shakespeare's Workmanship
Workmanship as Evidence
Workmanship Standards Manual
Workmanship: The hand and body as perceptual tools

Warden (talk) 09:15, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps list how workmanship was handled over time, guilds and whatnot. Plenty of books about this out there surely. The article has potential to become something if anyone wants to work with it. Dream Focus 10:40, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A dictionary definition, and impossible to expand beyond that without OR and synth. A redirect to Handicrafts as proposed by Nyttend would be more than sufficient, as teh two terms are largely synonomous. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 12:11, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: We're all familiar with this term, NOTEable cites are available by the millions, and it's a constant topic of discussion today as it was in the past - one often hears people discussing the workmanship of Apple's products, for instance. The argument for D to date has been argument from ignorance, "I can't see how this could ever…" And merge to handicraft? Are you sure? Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:23, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Massive results in news and book search, showing just how important workmanship is. The article has plenty of room for expansion. Dream Focus 17:48, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as very clearly nothing more than a dictionary definition. I'd be interested to see a keep voter supply any sense for how an encyclopedic article about the concept of "things having a certain level of quality" could possibly be written, rather than simply dumping a bunch of book titles with the word "workmanship" in them as if that's an argument in favor of anything. The word is a descriptive term to describe the quality/level of craft involved in making any number of things (as the beginning of this definitional article makes rightly clear), not an encyclopedic concept. As a secondary option I'd support the above redirect proposal (although I note that "workmanship" is definitely not limited to "handicrafts" -- it applies to a number of the intangible arts as well). ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 19:57, 3 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) 15:56, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Entire books have been written that focus upon this concept and topic. Clearly much more than a simple dictionary definition.

– Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:15, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources in article and found above; concept is massively notable. --Cyclopia ^talk 17:48, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as should be obvious to anyone with the remotest concept of what an encyclopedia is. I'm beginning to despair of Wikipedia's "anyone can edit" philosophy when it means that the so blatantly ignorant can call for deletion of an article on such an obviously notable concept, which is a completely different topic from handicraft. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:58, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not deletable under WP:DICTDEF. It is already more than a definition and it is only a stub. ~KvnG 04:39, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Key idea and concept; needs expansion is all. No need to delete, this is not even close to a dictionary definition; these constant "definition" AFD's are becoming problematic. Much of Wikipedia's coverage of core topics and ideas are underdeveloped; you fix them, not delete them. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 11:54, 12 June 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:13, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Biology Today: An Issues Approach

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

Only One among the four authors have wikipedia articles
Google Scholar gives 15 citations 1
This book is not historical being published only in 2003
The book does not explains why it is different than Other College text books
With all due respect to the author it seems that this article does not have any encyclopedic value . Solomon7968 (talk) 16:21, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, textbook with no notability. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:39, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG: there exist multiple secondary sources that cover this in nontrivial detail. I don't give a lot of weight to the low citation count on Google scholar: there aren't a lot of biology research paper citations to it because it is an introductory text, not a research monograph. Beyond the expected book reviews (e.g. [26]) I found two published articles comparing multiple textbooks and devoting nontrivial coverage to it ([27], [28]; the first of these two also notes its unusual organization by topics of current interest instead of by levels of hierarchy of complexity), and one article on a specialized topic (the social construction of race) which again covers it nontrivially, singling it out as "The most thorough treatment of race in a current biology textbook" [29]. I also found multiple college courses using this book as a text [30]. I think that's evidence enough for notability, and also enough to answer your question about how it is distinctive. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:52, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The Jstor page linked is of 1998. But the book was published in 2003! Solomon7968 00:20, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - The third edition was 2003. See Worldcat for earlier editions. (However, textbook publishers make many editions of their books these days, as a way to discourage the used book market, so I wouldn't read too much into the existence of multiple editions). The Jstor article is clearly talking about the same book. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:59, 11 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, SarahStierch (talk) 17:22, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In most instances, textbooks never become notable because they're textbooks and most never gain any sort of attention. There are so many of them that their existence is taken for granted, especially since they run through so many various editions. Most journals figure it's not worth their time to review the texts, let alone every edition of it. However once in a while you get a text that does gain critical attention. This is one of those rare instances, as the book has received mention in various peer-reviewed journals as one of the best textbooks of its type in the field. It's also impressive that the book managed to get reviews for two different editions. (The first edition did release in 1996, btw.) I also see where Google Scholar lists it as a reference in several different papers and journals. There isn't a huge amount out there, but coverage does exist and it's just barely enough for this to pass notability guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:08, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:Run of the mill undergraduate biology textbook. Lack of significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources that would indicate that this textbook stands out from the crowd. Just a couple of routine reviews. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:59, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This does seem to be the most widely used textbook with this approach. Looking at the holdings on WorldCat, when Columbia, Yale, NYU MedSchool, Johns Hopkins, & MIT buy an elementary level introductory biology textbook, it would only be because of its exceptional importance DGG ( talk ) 17:13, 20 June 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.

Jessica Yee

The result was delete. The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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) 05:46, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Surf Taco

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

Non notable local restaurant chain. The article has languished for 4 years as nothing more than a promotion. Geoff ^{Who, me?} 21:42, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like WP:ARTSPAM. If there is a level of notability, add the material to the article with valid references. --Stormbay (talk) 22:21, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not artspam, but doesn't meet N or GNG. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:39, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It just needs to be rewritten to be less promotional and use reliable sources. They might not be tons and tons, but there are multiple including this New York Times article, one in Restaurant Owner[31], this Red Bank, New Jersey new source, if we're feeling like supporting the future of journalism, here is an article from a high school newspaper, an article from a Jackson, New Jersey news source here and just a bit more digging... SarahStierch (talk) 16:43, 12 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, SarahStierch (talk) 16:53, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the multiple sources located by SarahStierch, thank you. I would also like to go on record as saying this does not look like WP:ARTSPAM, or any sort of spam to me. It does however look like a pretty darn bad article, as far as they go here, but that's something which will improve over time, hopefully sooner rather than later. AMFMUHFVHF90922 (talk) 01:50, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets WP:CORPDEPTH per sources available about this restaurant chain. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:45, 13 June 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 Michelle Branch. Actually I'm closing this as a merge. There is also an article for the single on the album already. SarahStierch (talk) 16:47, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

West Coast Time

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

Redirect declined. Not a peep has been said about this album since a single tweet from the singer in December. We're only 17 days away from Spring ending, and there's still no sign that this album will be released — no reliable sources have said anything on it since 2011! Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:05, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It meets the relevant notability criteria, and an album being delayed does not strip it of its notability. (In fact, delays can sometimes be one of the reasons an unreleased album becomes notable. While I don't think West Coast Time is yet in the leagues of Extraordinary Machine, it may be heading there...) There was a "peep" in March, which specifically mentioned the album's delays. (You could debate the Huffington Post as a reliable source in contentious cases, but I think it's reasonably reliable for sourcing something like this.) The point is that there are reliable sources (Billboard, among others) and the existence and details of the album has been confirmed by the record label. user:j (talk) 22:57, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources which date from 2011, and show absolutely no progress to this point. The Huffington Post source does not count, as it doesn't present anything beyond regurgitation of the 2011 sources. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:01, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The notability criteria for albums do not require a record label to update us on the progress of an album's release in the event of delays. There's also this piece in Angelino from February which mentions the album is scheduled for release this spring. You've gone from claiming there hasn't been a "peep" about the album in two years to writing off several "peeps" as "regurgitation." An album with reliable sources and a label-confirmed title, tracklisting, cover art, a released single, and scheduled release — even if delayed — meets our notability criteria, plain and simple. Your argument amounts to: "It was notable a few months ago, but it isn't now since it's probably been delayed again." Notability doesn't expire. user:j (talk) 00:48, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, at least you properly typify the HuffPo and Angelino coverage as "peeps," because both are, again, the briefest of mentions in articles that are about the singer, not the unreleased album. TPH's argument is coherent. We have coverage from 2011 of an album that was supposed to come out in 2011. That 2011 album never materialized. We now have "peeps" in 2013 that promise an album in spring. I note that it is currently summer. The notability criteria for albums allows for coverage of unreleased albums for a "very small number of exceptionally high-profile projects", with "title, track listing and release date" all confirmed. At the very least, no release date has been confirmed, and there is no evidence at all that this is an "exceptionally high-profile project" if the best current (i.e. non-assumptive of a 2011 release) coverage anyone can find are one-sentence mentions in HuffPo and Angelino.
    Also, out of curiosity, where did the label confirm the title, tracklisting, and cover art? The label link in the article is for the single. I don't see any sourcing for the tracklisting and cover art. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 01:21, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. (e/c) I think this is arguably borderline -- there was some coverage of the album in production in 2011 -- but there's really not been any coverage of it since. The March '13 HuffPo article is not about this album. It is a sort of "where the heck is Michelle Branch" article, and devotes a one sentence mention to the album. The rest of the recent sourcing are literally tweets from Michelle Branch herself. What is clear to me is that this is nowhere near an Extraordinary Machine or Chinese Democracy situation (the latter of which is mentioned in the relevant notability criterium as an example of an unreleased record that was clearly already notable). The former had quite a bit of coverage due to the (now apparently false) suspicion that it was intentionally being withheld by Fiona Apple's label, and the latter is a classic case of an album simply taking forever to appear. This album being nothing like those two situations (yet), I think this has to be a delete. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 00:02, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. user:j (talk) 00:56, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. user:j (talk) 00:56, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Michelle Branch#2011–present: West Coast Time. No tracklisting or upcoming release date has been confirmed, and the section within the artist's main page appears more detailed and better sourced than the album article, otherwise I would have suggested a merge. There is a fair amount of information about the album from multiple reliable sources (e.g., in chronological order, [32][33][34][35][36][37][38]), so it meets WP:GNG, but I'm not convinced that this meets the "exceptionally high-profile project" standard for unreleased albums outlined in WP:NALBUMS. Gong show 02:43, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Michelle Branch to preserve the article. Koala15 (talk) 19:22, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Best option right now, does not meet N on its own pre-release, and a redirect is easily converted back to article format when it is released. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:41, 8 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, SarahStierch (talk) 16:45, 12 June 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 - nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure). Whpq (talk) 00:05, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cosculluela

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

The article does not pass the general notability guideline because it has no independent, reliable sources. It also appears to fail the notability criteria for musicians. The Anonymouse (talk) 16:44, 12 June 2013 (UTC) Since my concerns about notability have been resolved, I withdraw this nomination. The Anonymouse (talk) 14:41, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Oppose Yes, Cosculluela's article needs a lot of work but he is notable. Just a look at his chart history on Billboard magazine proves this. His debut album peaked at number three on the Top Latin Albums chart. His follow up, El Nino peaked at number twenty-three. His 2012 mixtape peaked at number twenty-eight. Cosculluela - Chart History: Top Latin Albums. I'm pretty sure independent, reliable sources can be found. — Diva Knockouts 12:21, 13 June 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 Deleted without AfD due to WP:CSD#G10 Article deleted by User:Legoktm due to unsourced BLP. ^Jguy_Talk^Done 16:43, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Team Muscle Madness

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

~~The team isn't very notable; no hits come up on a Google search. In addition, it violates WP:CRYSTAL and WP:GNG as an article about a group of people who have not achieved notability yet.~~ Citrusbowler (talk) (contribs) (email me) 16:19, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing nomination: the page got deleted. Citrusbowler (talk) (contribs) (email me) 16:20, 12 June 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 (WP:CSD#G7: Author requested deletion) by SarahStierch (talk · contribs)

KPUSA

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

The author has an idea for a new web-based service. Neat idea. But per WP:NOR, Wikipedia isn't the place to publish said neat idea. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:10, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Removed template per instructions.

This isn't just a neat idea, it's already been implemented. There are additional ideas that have yet to be implemented. I am making this invention public at this point and thought it would be a good idea to put it on Wikipedia.

I've edited the verbiage I cut and pasted from an old e-mail about the project to reflect that it's no longer "just an idea." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Necronite (talk • contribs)

Necronite: Please do not remove anything from this AfD. The "remove this template" part is for a Wikipedia administrator to do, after (usually) at least a week has passed and consensus has become clear, and there are other things that must be done at the same time as removing it. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:32, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NFT. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:33, 12 June 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. v/r - T P 01:42, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Dad's Army cast members

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

Unduly trivial and unreferenced. PatGallacher (talk) 15:57, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least, the series itself is a reference for its own cast, and the cast of a notable series is hardly a trivial aspect of that subject. That said, whether this is best presented as a separate list or within a broader article is another question, and I think often something like List of Dad's Army characters is considered sufficient to list cast, though it's not readily organized around that information at present. postdlf (talk) 16:16, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested prod, the contestor just said "could sue some more referencing, but sheesh" (sic) which I don't think is much of an explanation. I think Postdlf may have grasped the point, that this article does not add anything of substance which is not already in List of Dad's Army characters, which already mentions the actors who played a number of fairly minor characters. I question whether this article is ever likely to be totally comprehensive, given that Dad's Army lasted for 9 TV series plus a few radio series and the film. Also, I note that this article was originally created by a bot using actors already in the category "Dad's Army actors", which suggests it was never necessarily that important. PatGallacher (talk) 16:58, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, we deleted all of the actors by series categories a long time ago; 2007 discussion here. postdlf (talk) 17:05, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - The point of that discussion was to avoid having dozens of categories on the actors' articles for every show that they appeared in. The consensus seemed to be that lists were more practical and that's what we have here. That discussion therefore supports retention of this list, not its deletion. Warden (talk) 17:38, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/merge The topic is notable per WP:LISTN, being documented in sources such as this and that. The show is still repeated and when one of the cast died recently, it was all over the press. It might be sensible to merge this in with the character list but the list of actors has value in itself as a navigational list which gets plenty of traffic - hundreds of hits on some days. Warden (talk) 17:33, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wonderful series, but this article adds little to any discussion of it, is unlikely ever to be fully updated (there are hundreds of cast members listed in Richard Webber's 'Complete Dads Army A-Z' for example), and so far as I can see Warden's web link points to the fact that Dads Army had a well-known primary cast not this partial list of some actors who were in the series (and all the notable ones are already covered in the main article). StuartDouglas (talk) 12:07, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per postdlf and StuartDouglas above. Miniapolis 19:01, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete General consensus is that TV programs have character lists summerising their role on the show, not a list of credits. I don't believe that every actor who may have participated on this show is inherently notable, especially since there is no indication on what roles are being played on this cast list. I also think List of Dad's Army characters is a more comprehensive list and this is a poor attempt at duplicating that. Funny ^Pika! 00:50, 25 June 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. --BDD (talk) 20:00, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GPM Global

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

Ad. Lack of sources failing WP:GNG and WP:CORP . Editor on talk page has searched. Widefox; talk 15:08, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note there's a related nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PRiSM Widefox; talk 15:15, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ARTSPAM. --Randykitty (talk) 15:34, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nary a hit in google news about this company despite their Wikipedia page claiming the moon and the sky. Most gnews are about "GPM (Global Precipitation Monitoring)". I'm discounting [39] by Joel Carboni (GPM President accroding to their LinkedIn profile) because Special:Contributions/Jbcarboni has been heavily contributing to the Wikipedia article, suggesting rather obvious WP:COI. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 23:36, 14 June 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) 18:14, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gene Ruyle

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

No particular claim to notability. Wrote two local plays that drew very sparse local coverage. Had a book published through an Episcopal-church-owned publisher. Gigs (talk) 14:29, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to oddly few independent sources. Bearian (talk) 19:55, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable as an author or otherwise. DGG ( talk ) 17:29, 20 June 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 default no consensus. I been trying to make sense of the policy based comments to determine a consensus of this AFD for the past 20 minutes, and this is simply a nationalistic mess that a valid consensus needs to be done though talk page discussion and not here as apparently there is a few articles that is very similar about this subject including the final comment below. AFD is not cleanup or to handle disputes unless the article is in clear violation of our guidelines and policies, which I couldn't tell here. Secret ^account 21:19, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deva Devali

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

This article that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources. The name deva-devali is itself incorrect and the correct term deva-diwali literally means celebration of Diwali by demigods. The topic is not encyclopedic enough and it does not list any reliable source to verify it. Rahul Jain (talk) 10:33, 12 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 12. Snotbot t • c » 10:55, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 11:36, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 11:36, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep First nominating user redirected article to Diwali with blank edit summary. When I reverted, he came here. The nominating user has history of abusing AFD process [40] [41] [42][43] [44] [45] [46] and redirecting, moving pages without discussion and with blank edit summaries. I have reported him for other issues also on ANI here. I think just article name change to 'Deva Diwali' is needed. neo (talk) 19:11, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Important Note to Closing Admin wrt User:Neo. Keep Vote above - kindly go thru his recent comment of 22 June 2013 at Talk:Deva Devali - where he has suggested redirect to ...this article should be redirected to Dev Deepawali (Varanasi). I can't post this on AfD page due to edit box limit problem. neo (talk) 14:46, 22 June 2013. Considering this fact his Keep vote should not be counted. Thanks. Jethwarp (talk) 15:13, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you make some valid, if not telling, points and observations about this AfD and the pthers you have mentioned.--Zananiri (talk) 12:10, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Kartik Poornima - Deva-Diwali is basically a Hindu festival. ~~Jains observe this day only because it was on this day - Kartik Poornima - Mahavira attained nirvana on this day - please go to this link - The legends behind Dev Diwali.~~ Besides, in article already has a sub-section Kartik_Poornima#Jainism on Jainism view of the day and one can expand further if any details are missing. Further, there also is an article for Mahavira's Nirvana day - Vira Nirvana Samvat. This article is unnecessary content fork and should be merged redirected as said above. Also the article heading is incorrect it should be Deva Diwali and not Deva Devali. Thanks Jethwarp (talk) 08:19, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Diwali, Rosh Hashanah, Eid, Eid al-Fitr, Vesak and the universal

New Year's Day all have separate articles about them, as they are significant events in national or religious calendars. I do not think that this article should be deleted, or given short shrift by merging it with Diwali or redirecting it to other articles on Jainism. The event is an important part of the Jain calendar. Jainism has an identitiy of its own, so it seems condescending to give this event an also-ran status under articles on Hinduism and/or Hindu festivals such as Kartik Poornima. The spelling in the heading is indeed wrong. That is easy to rectify. Jainism has its own feast days and festivals and there seems to be no reason to merge such articles with those on other religions, because they, too, have similar festivals. This is not the first time the AfD nominator here has brought an article on Jain issues to AfD simply because he has his own views on what Jainism means or represents. Lapsed Jains might indeed be indifferent to the meaning of this festival but for Jains generally it is significant, like all those I have mentioned above which have their own articles. --Zananiri (talk) 12:10, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The Jain new year is celebrated on Vira Nirvana Samvat one day after Kartik Poornima, which already has a separate article. So, I would once again say that article should be redirected to Kartik Poornima. Jethwarp (talk) 15:37, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification from the nominator

The spelling Deva-Devali is incorrect, so there is no point in keeping the Article. i.e. The wikipedia page titled "Deva-Devali" should be deleted.
The contents of the article can be either be placed under the heading "Diwali (Jainism)" or be merged with the other article of wikipedia. Again, The title "Deva-Diwali" would also be faulty. The term "Deva-Diwali" only means "celebration of Diwali by Deva (demigods)". I do not think that any reliable source exists which support the fact that the term "Deva-Diwali" has a greater significance to Jainism than "Diwali". So I do not support moving the contents under "Deva Diwali".

Rahul Jain (talk) 16:23, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If the door of a house is broken, one does not demolish the house. The door is replaced i.e. it is changed. The only thing wrong eith this page is the title, so there is absolutely no need to delete the article, which seems to be an odd suggestion, as there is nothing wrong with it. Just changing the title should suffice. Diwali (Jainism) may be a better solution than Dev Diwali or Deva Diwali. Merging the present article with or redirecting it to Kartik Poornima seems equally preposterous as it is not the solution from the Jain point of view. Jainism has its own distinct identity and place in the religions of the world and should not always be identified with Hinduism or Hindu practices, rituals and beliefs.Most Jains disapprove.. The Anglican Church and the Roman Catholic Church celebrate Christmas on the same day (the Greek Orthodox Church does not) and have some things in common but they are different. Jainism and Hinduism, too, have some things in common but they are different and Jain traditions should be respected and recognised as such. Changing the title to Diwali (Jainism) is eminently suitable and the nominator could withdraw his AfD nomination, if that is possible (not always the case).--Zananiri (talk) 19:08, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion; contrary to Nom’s assertion, the page has a number or reliable sources; and a Jain festival is as notable as anybody else’s.

Oppose redirect to Kartik Poornima also; Kartik Poornima is a date, on which Hindu, Sikh and Jain festivals take place; it should have summary paragraphs and main article links for them, not try and cover all three.

Whether this festival is the same as Vira Nirvana Samvat, and therefore should be merged with that article, I would leave to those who know more about Jainism that I do (though there is nothing on either page to suggest it): But if so, it should be discussed as a merge, not simply done on the back of this debate (“ merge” does not mean “blank and redirect”). Moonraker12 (talk) 10:26, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Moonraker12 created this article but the nominator of this AfD did not bother informing him that he was nominating it for AfD. It is good manners to do so. One just has to look to see if the creator of an article is still active, if one thinks the article should not be here.--Zananiri (talk) 11:55, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I just went thru the article and I feel it is totally messed up. It says :-

Mahavira attained his nirvana at the dawn of the amavasya (new moon). According to the Kalpasutra by Acharya Bhadrabahu, 3rd century BCE, many gods were present there, illuminating the darkness - Now amavasya or new moon of Kartika is day of Diwali and not day of Dev Diwali.

Diwali has a very special significance in Jainism. It is celebrated as Deva Devali around the full moon day (Purnima) of Kartik. Lord Mahavira, the last of the Jain Tirthankar of this era, attained Nirvana or Moksh on this day at Pavapuri on Oct. 15, 527 BCE, on Chaturdashi of Kartika,.. - again it speaks of Diwali and then says Diwali is celebrated as Dev Diwali - this is total misrepresentation of fact as Diwali and is simple copy-paste of Diwali#Jainism.

In fact whole article is copy-paste from two articles (1) Diwali#Jainism and (2) Vira Nirvana Samvat

Therefore as said by me it is unnecessary content fork and should be merged or even deleted as article title is also incorrect.

Thanks. Jethwarp (talk) 16:04, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(a late interpolation: I have addressed Jethwarp's point, below. Moonraker12 (talk) 23:05, 17 June 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Comment - I accept that the article could be improved. However, deleting an article just because the title may be or is wrong is ridiculous. That can be put right in five seconds. I have corrected or changed the titles of other articles in the past. It is no big deal. There is an article entitled Diwali in Gujarat yet Diwali is celebrated in other Indian states as well. If that article is kept, we should also have separate articles on Diwali in other Indian states. In fact, Diwali in Gujarat is already mentioned in the main article on Diwali in which its celebration in other Indian states is also mentioned in subsections with the names of the states. Diwali in Maharashtra has already been redirected to Diwali yet Diwali in Gujarat is still there. For how long? I think that the title of Diwali could well be changed to Diwali (Hinduism) and the title of this article changed to Diwali (Jainism). This article could be revised, improved and expanded. Why should everything related to Jainism be amalgamated with articles on Hinduism or be placed under the umbrella heading of articles which are mainly about Hindu traditions, beliefs and practices? Take that article on Kartik Poornima. The first sentence in the lead states: Kartika Poornima (Kartika purnima) is a Hindu holy day celebrated on the Purnima ... Get the point? Jainism is again given short shrift and mentioned way down in the article. Anyone reading just the lead would associate Diwali in the main with Hinduism. Hence, this article could be kept and reviewed and, where necessary, corrected. There are other ways of dealing with the issue e.g. change the lead in the Kartik Poornima article to say 'Hindu and Jain' holy day' or have two Kartik Poornima articles, one with (Hinduism) and another one with (Jainism) in the title. However, to give Jainism an also-ran position in this matter and/or in other similar situations appears to be a highly biased point of view. Just improve this article, if you can do so.--Zananiri (talk) 18:21, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Jain year starts with Diwali says the article, Vira Nirvana Samvat. Now if Jain year starts day after Diwali. Then why it is mentioned here on Deva Devali - page. As I said earlier, the whole page is copy-paste and giving wrong or confusing information. I again reiterate, that it should be re-directed to Kartik Poornima - it's lede clearly states It is sometimes called Deva-Diwali or Deva-Deepawali - the festival of lights of the gods. I wanted to clean-up the article but not doing so as I have voted here in AfD. Jethwarp (talk) 08:06, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - You are allowed to change or withdraw your vote altogether by striking through your original vote like this ~~redirect to Kartik Poornima~~. No problem whatsoever there. Since you say you are familiar with the subject, should you decide to clean it up, as you have indicated, I would be pleased to help you with copy editing, if required. Why delete, merge or redirect something which can be kept with improvements! However, my observation about Jainism having to play second fiddle to Hinduism in many Wiki articles such as Kartik Poornima stands. You and others here have not addressed this issue. There seems to be no justification for this stance.--Zananiri (talk) 10:12, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is absolutely no reason to have two separate article for the same festival just because it is celebrated by two different religions in this case. If we remove all the confusing and redundant information that is present in this article, the only thing that will remain is the line "Diwali in Jainism is the celebration of the festival of Diwali by Jains". There is no point in making the redirect "Deva Devali" → "Diwali" or "Deva Devali" → "Kartik Poornima" since the name "Deva Devali" is clearly incorrect. If we redirect this page to some other article, it would leave a redirect with incorrect spelling. As far as I know, there is no policy of wikipedia which asks for redirects with wrong spelling. Rahul Jain (talk) 10:48, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at your talk page, I get the impression you may not be familiar with many Wiki policies. As I have said repeatedly, the title can be changed in five seconds. No need to make a mountain out of a molehill. At one point, you yourself suggested changing the title to Diwali (Jainism). We kept Atman (Jainism) - which you wanted deleted viz. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Atman_(Jainism) - and also have Atman (Hinduism) and Atman (Buddhism) because they are all about different religions and have their own distinct features. I would apply the same arguments which I and others put forward to keep Atman (Jainism) to keep this article. --Zananiri (talk) 11:43, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Moving the page to Diwali (Jainism) would have two problems, firstly, there would be an incorrect redirect as a side effect, as I said earlier "Deva Devali" → "Diwali (Jainism)". Secondly, and more importantly, the article Diwali (Jainism) cannot be expanded enough to make it of encyclopedic quality. This is so because apart from the fact that Diwali is celebrated on the occasion of Mahavira's death rather than Ram's coming to ayodhya, there is no difference between the two. For such small difference, there need not be two separate articles and anything that we add in "Diwali (Jainism)" would perfectly fit under "Diwali". Rahul Jain (talk) 11:57, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are making assumptions when you state with an air of finality that the article cannot be expanded enough to make it of encyclopedic qualty implying thereby that no one else could possibly add anything of value to the article if it is kept. Really! Hardly a convincing argument. I think using the indicative case in such arguments is being presumptuous. --Zananiri (talk) 12:28, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the sentence after "the article cannot be expanded enough to make it of encyclopedic qualty", you will find that I explained my position. It is not an assumption because its substantiated with an argument in the very next line. Rahul Jain (talk) 13:11, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I still stand by my opinion i.e. Redirect to Kartik Poornima. Because, Kartik Poornima is also known by name Dev Diwali. Now, Hindus, Jains and Sikhs may have different reasons to observe this day or festival and the article Kartik Poornima, clearly explains the reasons - and - point of view - of all religions. - Jethwarp (talk) 04:00, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- Also one should note that Jains do not celebrate this day as Dev Diwali as the name suggests - the name suggests it is day when Devas celebrate Diwali in heaven. Jains celebrate Kartik Poornima as Dev Diwali is incorrect statement.

The correct statement would be Kartik Poornima a.k.a. Dev Diwali day is celebrated by Jains for remembering Mahavir Swami. - [47]. Those, who are pushing Jainism point of view and Keep votes neither have any in-depth idea about the article name nor do they have in-depth idea about Jainism - the article name Dev Diwali is just another name of Kartik Poornima. Thanks. - Jethwarp (talk) 04:31, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The closing Admin or person who closes this in case of Non-admin closure should also see the following comments made on User_talk:Zananiri page by Moonraker - I think we should have an article on the Jain festival (which is why I wrote it; I came across it while editing the Diwali pages); but I'm not clear now whether I got the name right. If it is the same as Vira Nirvana Samvat, and that is the correct name, then a merge would be reasonable. But other people have contributed to it as Deva Devali, and no-one (except RJ2307) has complained so far... Moonraker12 (talk)

The other keep voter User neo - says Jainism is one of the major religions and Deva Diwali is biggest festival. It deserve separate article. It should not be deleted or redirected to some other article on the assumption that article will never be improved.

I have already explained why Deva Diwali is not a festival of Jains. Just see google book result [48], [49] almost zero results not a single book mentions it as a major festival of Jains

Deva Diwali is just a name often used for Kartik Poornima day. Jains observe this day for different reasons as explained earlier.

Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia - and we should be giving correct information to the readers and editors should work with Neutral Point of View. Regards. Jethwarp (talk) 05:33, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am neither a Jain nor a Hindu nor a Sikh so have no axe to grind as far as this article is concerned. The nominator did seem to present his very own views (POV) as he emphasised in his last post here again, but he has now retired from Wiki - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rahuljain2307 - so this AfD is in the balance. I agree that WP:NPOV is of the essence, which is why I maintain that the article should be kept, renamed, improved and expanded, with clearer information about Diwali (Jainism) and the relevance of Dev Diwali to Jains as well, to make it a decent, informative and truly encyclopaedic article. Merging it with other articles or redirecting it elsewhere, would not give those interested in the subject the true or complete picture. As the nominator has gone, we can start afresh with an absolutely unbiased NPOV. Kartik Poornima is not the answer. Millions and millions of non-Jain/Hindu/Sikh people around the world have heard of Diwali and if they wanted to find out more about it on Wiki, they would look for it under Diwali in the first instance not Kartik Poornima, as the latter term is Double Dutch to most of them. As a non-Jain/Hindu/Sikh individual, I would do the same. Renaming the article Diwali (Jainism), in the context of Jainism, and expanding it elaborately would certainly teach me more about it than Kartik Poornima. Continuing to dwell on Kartik Poornima and what the present title of this article suggests becomes meaningless in the context of what the article is supposed to be about, as its creator has indicated.--Zananiri (talk) 10:32, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have gotten it all wrong, you are confusing between Diwali and Dev Diwali. We are discussing Dev Diwali here and not Diwali - see your own comment - they would look for it under Diwali in the first instance not Kartik Poornima.

If you want to start an article like Diwali (Jainism) - please go ahead and start it but do not confuse it with Dev Diwali. Diwali is celebrated by Jains on day of Diwali only and not on day of Dev Diwali. Diwali falls on New moon of Karika month and Dev Diwali falls on Full moon of Kartika month.

In fact just did a google search [50] and it is more confusing. Many of the books say Mahavir Swami got moksha on day of Diwali and not on the day of Dev Diwali ????

That is why I told earlier, that whole article is messed. The creator has just copy pasted things from pages like Diwali and Vira Nirvana Samvat without understanding what he is creating. I hope some other editors join the debate. Going by the name of title Dev Diwali you cannot just expand it becoz it will fall to some extant as WP:OR or WP:HOAX. Bcoz Dev Diwali is just another name for Kartik Poornima day. ---- Jethwarp (talk) 12:55, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If, as you say, you have done a Google search and found nothing of value, here is your chance to put things right. You would be making a valuable and important contribution, as you are interested in generating encyclopaedic knowledge about this subject. Such an article, along the lines I have suggested, by renaming this article Diwali (Jainism), could include what you are telling me and others about Dev Diwali as well, the significance of the two events and explain the misunderstanding caused by people referring to Diwali/Dev Diwali. All the more reason for doing so, as you seem to know something about the confusion the two terms can cause. My knowledge of Hinduism and Jainism is limited, so I am not going to create any article on the subject. in fact, for personal reasons, I do not create Wiki articles on any subject, even if the subject may be something about which I know a lot and have published material. So, I will leave it to you and others to deal with the subject under discussion and spread your expertise. I can assure you that people like me would fund it useful, without having to look at Kartik Poornima, which most people in my circles and environment have never heard of. So, yes, I may have got it all wrong, as you say, But the Kartik Poornima article should give the same weighting to Jains, Hindus and Sikhs. I might put that right in due course. --Zananiri (talk) 14:53, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jethwarp: Just to be clear:

This article was not created as a content fork, it was a spin-off article from the Diwali page. The discussion on the matter was on the talk page (here), and the Diwali#Jainism section was summarized and copied with these edits in Decemebr 2011. If the content was re-instated at Diwali subsequently, by someone who doesn’t understand the whole Summary/Main article set-up, I suggest that needs addressing there, not here.

Now, the grounds for deletion are here.

This article does not lack reliable sources, nor (as I have shown) is it a content fork. It is neither advertizing, nor spam, nor vandalism nor a copyright violation, and it is not original research. The subject does not lack notability; so on what grounds does it need to be deleted?

If you have any problems with the content (and you have highlighted (at most) two mistakes, which were in the Diwali article before this one) then fix them. But this, is not the way to go about it. Moonraker12 (talk) 22:58, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, Moonraker, I did not start AfD. Secondly, I have already said there will not be much left - if cleaned up - I have voted for redirect - and donot want to repeat the reasons again and again. As the creator of article it is your first duty to see that article is imparts factual information. However, as you have said ~~I may decide to delete things which~~ I have deleted the things I find are not correct and if you want to reinstate then the ONUS lies with you. Jethwarp (talk) 04:00, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, probably rename after discussion. The article talks about a major festival followed by Jains. ~~Also Mahavira attained nirvana on this day.~~ The topic itself is notable enough to stay on encyclopedia. The article can be cleaned and more information about history can be added. Also the rituals, traditions followed by Jains on this day can be added. Topic is notable and has scope also to expand thus ruling out any redirect option. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 07:18, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note to all editors: Please read WP:WALLS. Your extensive jibber jabber is all useless. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 07:21, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

:@Dharmadhyaksha (talk · contribs) -- Mahavira did not attain nirvana on this day. Please see Talk:Deva Devali - to clear your confusion. Also if you go thru AfD - you will find there already is an article on Mahavira's Nirvana day - Vira Nirvana Samvat. Thanks - Jethwarp (talk) 08:01, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Still not changing my opinion on the basic topic. Also i really meant it when i gave that WP:WALLS link. By no means i am ever gonna read all the dumping that you all editors have done so far. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:06, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Kartik Poornima Doesn't seem to be anything here that is not already there. --regentspark (comment) 17:34, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for that is that most of the article has been deleted whilst we have been discussing it (see here) Moonraker12 (talk) 23:15, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The admins / editors should note that User:Neo. - has already created a new article Diwali (Jainism) - shifting the disputed content over there, which I welcome.

I think now the title Deva Devali - should be redirected to Kartik Poornima. I am bringing this info here - if someone wants to change their vote - as Deva Diwali is just another name for Kartik Poornima day. See goggle book search [51] - Perhaps User:Neo. would like to change his Keep vote also - Thanks - Jethwarp (talk) 03:23, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jethwarp: I have been away, but as Moonraker12 says, you have disembowelled his article and, it seems, taken over from the nominator of this AfD by proxy. Excising the content of an article rather than editing it, is not really kosher. It doesn't matter whether someone else has created an article on Diwali (Jainism), as this article in its original form was about a significant Jain issue. Jainism is just as important as Hinduism or any other religion, but your recent edits at Kartik Poornima once again evince the Hindu bias in that article, which, to me, is a compelling reason to keep this article and let its creator, with the collaboration of other open-minded. unbiased contributors, undo your seemingly one-sided and unjustified excisions, and improve it. As I have said before, one should treat all religions with respect and an open mind (NPOV). A person who is not a Hindu or a Jain is more likely to have an open mind and edit the article without any bias. I can understand Moonraker12. What you are asking to be redirected is not what he created or what the original AfD article was about. It looks increasingly like your POV. Please refrain from telling everyone else repeatedly that they are all wrong. It appears, this article, in its present form after your wholesale excisions, is, more or less, what you so adamantly wish to be submerged into Kartik Poornima, which, I think, looks like an article with a pronounced Hindu slant. --Zananiri (talk) 15:58, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Closing Admins - Please go thru User_talk:Zananiri and User_talk:Neo.#Deva_Devali and User_talk:Moonraker12#Thanks - where in some of the editors who have voted keep here - have already agreed that there was error in naming the article and hence created a new article Diwali (Jainism). Now it demonstrates that some of them are having two opinions - one at their talk page - and - another opposite of that at AfD - also does it fall under WP:CANVAS or WP:GANG - I am note sure may be or may be not? Thanks. Jethwarp (talk) 13:21, 22 June 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. WP:CSD#G7 at author's request JohnCD (talk) 17:10, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Moment Always Vanishing

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

Fails WP:GNG. Self-produced album without proof of any importance. Added sources only prove that the album exists and is on sale. The Banner talk 10:31, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

yes, never was able to find any further press. now tagged with {{db-author}}. Frietjes (talk) 14:40, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 12 June 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. --BDD (talk) 20:03, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2013 mid-year rugby test series

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

There is no such thing as "2013 mid-year rugby test series" (or "summer tours") covered by reliable sources. This is a made-up subject which is an arbitrary list of matches connected by being played around the same time. "Week 1" etc is a made-up timeline with no basis in reliable sources. hippo43 (talk) 10:00, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 10:33, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep This article is about a series of rugby union test matches taking place in the middle of the year 2013. That title is absolutly apt.

The matches are organised as tours, are widely understood as such and have been from the very earliest days [52]. Reliable sources, try ESPN, BBC, RTE, The Scotsman, The Telegraph. Enough. Hamish59 (talk) 11:38, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CommentYou are right, the title is apt for the subject matter in the article. But that is not the objection to the article. I could start an article called Series of grey buildings on the north side of my street - about a series of buildings which are grey etc. It still wouldn't be a real series covered by reliable sources, and it wouldn't be notable enough for a wikipedia article.

Of course tours exist, that is not in question. But where are the sources that cover this supposed series? The "2013 mid-year rugby test series" does not exist, as far as I can tell from reliable sources. Is it mentioned in any of these sources you gave? It appears to be an entirely artificial construct. --hippo43 (talk) 12:09, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment so is your problem with the word "series"? If so, rename the article to "2013 mid-year rugby tests" or some such. Hamish59 (talk) 12:22, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if this one goes / is renamed, then so should these:

Mid-year rugby union test series

2004 mid-year rugby test series

2005 mid-year rugby test series

2006 mid-year rugby test series

2007 mid-year rugby test series

2008 mid-year rugby test series

2009 mid-year rugby test series

2010 mid-year rugby test series

2011 mid-year rugby test series

2012 mid-year rugby test series

I take it that 2012 end-of-year rugby union tests and its ilk are acceptable? Despite opening with "The 2012 end of year rugby tests, ..., is a series of international rugby union matches" Hamish59 (talk) 12:31, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My objection is that the subject is made up. There is no reason to create an artificial group of matches when reliable sources do not treat them as such, especially when individual tours already have their own articles. This article (and those for other years) is essentially a list of games that take place in a certain arbitrary time frame in any number of different places. The grounds for inclusion are vague at best - is this a series of test matches, or a bunch of national teams' tours lumped together? Are non-test games to be included? Barbarians games? It's a mess, which serves no purpose other than some editors' desire to put lots of things in boxes and lists.

Can you provide any good sources that treat these games as a connected group?

Reply Generally under a section called "International Rugby" or similar: ESPN, RTE, The Scotsman, The Telegraph. Hamish59 (talk) 13:21, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply These do not refer to these matches as part of a series, or as part of the same event. Combining them into one article is spurious. Why only tests over these few weeks? Why not all tests in 2013, for example? Where are the sources which establish this group of matches as notable? --hippo43 (talk) 18:48, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ah, I begin to see what you are driving at now. You orignal rationale was not at all clear. I take it that these have to go too:

End-of-year rugby union tests

2002 end-of-year rugby union tests

2004 end-of-year rugby union tests

2005 end-of-year rugby union tests

2006 end-of-year rugby union tests

2007 end-of-year rugby union tests

2008 end-of-year rugby union tests

2009 end-of-year rugby union tests

2010 end-of-year rugby union tests

2011 end-of-year rugby union tests

2011 end-of-year women's rugby union tests

2012 end-of-year rugby union tests

2012 end-of-year women's rugby union tests

2013 end-of-year rugby union tests

Hamish59 (talk) 12:57, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Apologies if my original statement wasn't very clear. I agree, these other articles are similarly flawed. If you get started on deleting them I will give you all the support I can. --hippo43 (talk) 18:48, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Is this a joke? I agree with everything Hamish59 has wrote. Giskard (talk) 12:06, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is a simple way out of this. Just rename the articles Mid year rugby union tests. It's not rocket science. You said ESPN is reliable, however, ESPN cover the Barbarian match and the Blues v France match. Grow up. Rugby.change (talk) With regards to the 'Week 1,2,3,etc' sections, this is not creating a timeline, its a matter of helping readers navigate through the article easier. Rugby.change (talk) 16:39, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Irrespective of what words you prefer, where are the sources which establish that these matches are notable as a group? Week 1/2/3 etc is a spurious way of labelling these games and has no basis in any sources. Who says which week is week 1? --hippo43 (talk) 18:48, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you read. Labelling weeks as week 1,2,3,etc are not saying they are the first week of something, that are to navigate through the page easier to if the weeks were not there. Anyway, the week sections are used in many rugby articles. What do you plan to do, delete all Rugby Article fixtures on Wikipedia. Rugby.change (talk) 20:17, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, can you prove they are not week labeled as week 1,etc. Define reliable, what you see as reliable is probably different to what I see as reliable. Rugby.change (talk) 20:21, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support. After a bit of thought I'm with Hippo on this one. The article is in fact "collection of rugby union matches which happen to be played during the middle months of 2013". It's not a discrete tournament like the 6N or Super Rugby, it's just a bunch of games. If the casual reader wants to find out the result of (say) one of the Argentina v England tests, he/she can turn to 2013 England rugby union tour of Argentina, which is a rational article on a single tour, or History of rugby union matches between Argentina and England. Is anyone actually going to come looking for an article on mid-year "tests", some of which are tests and some of which aren't? --Bcp67 (talk) 20:22, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, can we have civil debate please - "grow up" and "can you read?" don't belong in an adult discussion. --Bcp67 (talk) 20:24, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Who are we to decide weather or not people read the article more than the tour articles. Not all the tours have it's own personal article I.E Ireland. The tour articles is something that is quite recent. It's only since the new global tour system introduced last year by the IRB that tour articles has been created. On top of that, where would you find the Georgia v Argentina test, what you going to do, create an article for one single test. The Mid-Year rugby union test pages are to list the tests, with the tour articles including further information on the tour should readers feel like reading them. If you read this, [53], the IRB states them as the June Internationals (second link down), which is as good as calling the articles as mid-year rugby union tests. Rugby.change (talk) 20:37, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You said the Summer Tours are made up. [54] proof that they are not! Flamincho (talk) 20:48, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tour articles have been around for years - people were working on tour articles as far back as 2008. My point about readers is this; we get wrapped up here in what we do, creating & editing articles that interest us - but it's supposed to be a source of information. Someone might want, in a few years time maybe, to find out about matches between Argentina and England, or a tour which a team made. Would someone want to find about all the various games played in the summer of 2013? I don't know, and nor does anyone else, but my opinion is that they probably won't. --Bcp67 (talk) 20:50, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, the Mid-year rugby union tests should be the main page, with the individual tours coming off that with more detail. Sort of like the Six Nations. The Six Nations Championship is the main page, coming off that is the yearly tournament, which includes all the details about that year. The main article doesn't include all the details (2013 mid-year rugby union tests) but the 2013 Six Nations Championship dose include all the details in that year (or in this case the tour (2013 France rugby union tour of New Zealand)) Rugby.change (talk) 20:55, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. There are lots of references to "mid year tests" and "summer internationals."

A whole section for it on Setanta
Mentioned by the CEO of Rugby Canada: "With Canada competing in the world's top rugby events, including the men's and women's Rugby World Cups, Pan-American Games and summer internationals..."
From the SANZAR website, "A further six players will be added to the group once Super Rugby breaks for the mid-year Test window on June 10." Why would SuperRugby break if there wasn't such a thing as the mid-year tests?
Bleacher Report Headline, "IRB Rugby 2013 Summer Tests"
Booking tours for the summer tests
From the Guardian, "The Ireland game, at BBVA Compass Stadium in Houston on 8 June (and thus within the International Rugby Board's summer international window, when clubs must release players if countries call for them), follows a fixture against Italy last year that attracted a national-record 17,214 spectators."

There are many references to the mid-year and end-of-year (or Summer and Fall) tests. They happen every year, and have happened for quite some time now. I'm not sure how anyone can say that there's "no such thing" as the Summer Tours. Grande (talk) 21:00, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And just in case the above is not enough, here's a bunch from the official IRB website. If the IRB recognises the mid-year and end-of-year tests, we should as well.

"IRB Match Official Appointments for British & Irish Lions tour to Australia, IRB Pacific Nations Cup and June internationals", http://www.irb.com/training/officialpanels/
"The matches, which feature 12 IRB Strategic Initiative Unions are in addition to the Tier One v Tier Two fixtures within the international tours and Test schedule approved by the IRB Council in 2010." http://www.irb.com/newsmedia/mediazone/pressrelease/newsid=2063575.html
"The end of year tests..." http://www.irb.com/rankings/news/newsid=2064363.html
Article about the Summer Tests in 2008. http://www.irb.com/newsmedia/news/newsid=2024295.html
"Canada started their series of summer Tests..." http://www.irb.com/mm/document/newsmedia/mediazone/02/06/28/20/20121406canadaitaly.pdf
"The squad could yet be subject to change with players named also in contention for the Wallabies and Australia A squads for the summer Tests..." http://www.irb.com/newsmedia/news/newsid=2023575.html
And I think this is most damning of them all, IRB's Regulation 9.7, which talks about releasing players for the June & November Internationals. http://www.irb.com/mm/document/lawsregs/regulations/04/23/27/42327_pdf.pdf

What more do you want? Grande (talk) 21:19, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See even the Southern Hemisphere's Sanzar titles the tests as the Mid-year tests. Although what I'm concerned about, is you worry over what the article is called. It seems to me, you disagree with the articles name, and that problem was already sorted, changing the articles from mid-year rugby test series to mid-year rugby union tests. Rugby.change (talk) 21:09, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep albeit in vastly diminished form. This page should simply be a list of results with a short prose section to tie it all together. I view this page (and all the others like it) as being akin to the International cricket in 2013 article, and the tour articles as similar to the New Zealand cricket team in England in 2013 article. A lot of notable rugby matches are happening this summer, including a few one-off matches that should not have their own individual articles, but there should at least be an article to cover all of them in summary style. I would just say that we should not add the line-ups, touch judges and the rest like we do on individual tour articles. – Pee Jay 21:16, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I completely agree PeeJay and Grande, although the used of line-ups is another discussion. Rugby.change (talk) 21:23, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep for article. I don't have a strong opinion about the full content, or as to the title, but each annual article on mid-year and end-of-year Tests reflects a long-established IRB practice of reserving June and November for Test matches. I won't even try to add to the rationale for keeping it, since it's been more than eloquently stated by any number of other posters. — Dale Arnett (talk) 03:05, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I haven't argued that these tests don't happen, that the IRB doesn't schedule a release period for them, or that countries don't tour during the summer months - of course they do. There are obviously sources which mention summer tests or mid year test or whatever. However, are there sources which establish notability? The fact that something exists and can be listed doesn't mean we should create an article listing it, and nor does the fact that a test match happened and we're not quite sure where to put it.

To my reading of the guidelines, these articles do not meet either the general notability guideline or the notability guideline for sports events.

Are there, for example, good quality sources which discuss all the games in the summer of 2008 as a whole, which reflect on their significance within the global game or do anything other than list results? I've tried to find them and can't. That 2008 article covers games from June through to September, spread across four continents. Even leaving aside Belgium vs the Barbarians, there is just no significant connection, for example, between the Ireland-Barbarians game and the South Africa-Argentina game. Can anyone find any sources which discuss (beyond simply listing details) the links between these types of games? --hippo43 (talk) 12:05, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the reason there are no games listed after July to September is because the International window for the mid-year tests are from June to July. August in the Southern hemisphere is the Rugby Championship and in the Northern Hemisphere is training ahead of the club tournaments. Other tournaments are also in place for August. Rugby.change (talk) 13:44, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I know why there are no later games listed, and was not expressing confusion over it. The point is, the time frame is arbitrary. Although the IRB designates three weekends in June for international games, these articles include different periods. The fact that games in that article are listed from June to September shows how vague the criteria for inclusion have been.

Anyway, what are your thoughts on the policy re notability? Do you think the subject meets the notability guidelines or not, and can you explain why? --hippo43 (talk) 14:35, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) There are no websites that talk specifically about 2013 in association football either, and yet we still have a series of articles like that going back almost 150 years. We have this article because it is a convenient summary of the individual countries' summer tour articles. – Pee Jay 13:55, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment See WP:WAX. Convenient for who? People looking for info on games played between certain dates, all over the world? Presumably these people are here looking for it because they can't find any real coverage of this 'subject' in good quality reliable sources?

Does it meet the notability guidelines and why? --hippo43 (talk) 14:35, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Personally I think we should just leave it as it is. The mid-year articles has all the fixtures announced by the individual unions and the IRB with tour articles coming off that with a more thorough overview off the tour I.E touring squads. For the non-test matches included it's briefly shown with no line-ups. What actually seems to be the problem with the article. Should other matches take place in the June/July international window then they would be on there. Basically if Tier 3 team announces a fixture, then it will be on there. As for 2013, tier 3 team is competing. Rugby.change (talk) 14:25, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with the article is that it doesn't appear to be a notable enough subject for an article based on the general and specific notability guidelines - WP:N and WP:SPORTSEVENT. Have you read them and what do you think? --hippo43 (talk) 14:40, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We realistically can't tell if the article is notable enough. We could say this about all the articles on Wikipedia. We just have assume it's notable enough. Just because there's few editors editing the article doesn't mean we are the only people reading the article. Rugby.change (talk) 14:47, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I'm aware, the Mid-year articles cover Internatinal friendlies in the June/July IRB international window. Matches included on the article are matches that are officially announced by the individual rugby unions and or the press release of IRB referees in May. All matches in the document [55] will be covered on the article. We can't just make up fixtures. Rugby.change (talk) 14:49, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not how it works. As editors, we have to make decisions based on whether articles meet the notability criteria. Based on your reading of the criteria, does this topic meet them? Has it received significant coverage in reliable, independent sources? --hippo43 (talk) 15:58, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The article dose meet the notability criteria and yes it has reliable sources. ESPN is a reliable source and on top of that, there are references to the individual unions. Rugby.change (talk) 16:20, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point me towards the significant coverage - prose, rather than just stats - these games receives as a group? --hippo43 (talk) 17:04, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: Per Hamish. I also recommend a SNOW close. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 16:25, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: I am a keen follower of these rugby match results, and frequently use the data to update players' statistics on wikipedia. Aliwal2012 (talk) 16:46, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a terrible reason to keep it. Wikipedia can't be used as a source for the articles you are updating, per WP:WPNOTRS. --hippo43 (talk) 17:04, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I do agree with hippo43's argument that this is an artificial construct and the representation does not make much sense. What information is contained in this article that isn't in 2013 British and Irish Lions tour to Australia, 2013 France rugby union tour of New Zealand, 2013 England rugby union tour of Argentina or 2013 Wales rugby union tour of Japan? It seems like an unnecessary duplication to me. If articles are created for the Irish tour to North America and the South African Quadrangular Series, then everything is covered in those pages and they can all be linked by adding them to a category called "2013 mid-year rugby test series". TheMightyPeanut (talk)

I just think that it's far more easier for readers to see the fixtures on a single article. Remember there are single tests and there's no point creating an article for a single test. Remember the 2013 Mid Year rugby union tests is the main article with all the tests. The individual tours include far more detail I.E touring squads and history between the touring and home nation. Rugby.change (talk) 17:43, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, although I will maintain that this article should be summary style only, as I said above, i.e. nothing other than the summary table at the top, the {{rugbybox}} templates and the quadrangular tournament table. – Pee Jay 17:45, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by summury the tours are mentioned not explained. The individual fixtures are a copy of the tours, meaning line-ups should be included. The linked tournaments will explain the tour in more detail and will include the squads for future reference. Rugby.change (talk) 17:49, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Completely agree Rugby.change. The mid-year tests article gathers all tests in a single article. It saves readers from looking for individual tour articles, and if solo test happens (Argentina v Georgia) it covers that - No point creating an article for one test. The text at the far top of the article briefly mentions the tours, with the overview section linking readers to the tours, where they find a much more detailed article on the tour. There is apsolutly nothing wrong with the current article, it has plenty of refrences to back everything up and keeps readers up to date with the latest tests without flipping between pages looking at different tours. It seems to me that hippo43 is expressing his/her own opinion. Flamincho (talk) 18:02, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, there is absolutely no point in including the line-ups on both pages. It's the same as what we do for the FIFA World Cup articles; line-ups are included on the pages for each round but not on the overall tournament page. It's pointless. – Pee Jay 17:58, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with User:PeeJay2K3. Let's remove the line ups. Keep it on the tour pages and, for the single tests, let's just ignore it. We probably don't need that info. Grande (talk) 19:14, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Flamincho, Of course I am expressing my opinion - everyone here is. However, I have expressed my opinion with regard to the notability guidelines, while nobody who takes the opposite view has. Can you point me towards significant prose coverage of summer/mid-year tests as a whole in independent, reliable sources, or is your argument just that you like the article as it is? --hippo43 (talk) 19:49, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on article title As you maybe aware, during each year as of 2012, there are two release windows for player. The first is June for the June International window (Officially called mid-year rugby union tests), the other is for November for the November International window. (Officially called End-of year rugby union tests). As for the June tests, I renamed the articles form mid-year rugby test series to mid-year rugby union tests as not every year will include a series (2011 and 2015).

Match coverage I'll admit, I get all the match coverage from ESPN as I personally see them as a very reliable source like many other people on here. They are up to date with new fixture announcements and has the fixtures listed well in advance. As of 13 June 2013, they have fixtures up to the end of the 2015 Rugby World Cup. But an official list can be sourced by the referee press release earlier in the year ,Referee press release, and it can be sourced by the fixtures/result column on the IRB IRB Fixtures and results. Grande has further references further up or have you just ignored them?

Further comments as you mentioned that officially there is no Week 1, Week 2, Week 3 during the June international window. This was only put in place so that readers can navigate through the article easier than if they weren't there. In my opinion the weeks sectioned can indicate the weeks in the window. June 1-7 Week 1, June 8-14 Week 2 and so on.

Away from that, to answer your final question. Yes I do like the article as it is, it informs people on all the fixtures all in one place a direct copy of the tour websites. People like Pee Jay and Rugby.change have been editing the article for mounts, and I'd like to thank them for their efforst, and as I've said before, the tour articles are a lot more detailed to the opening text at the top of the mid-year test article. They explain the tour and include the touring and home nations squad. Last year was the first year that tour articles were created for the individual tours/series, and people has repeated this, this year to keep it consistent.

The article title is not really relevant, and not my main objection to the article. Likewise the issue of week numbers, my objection to which has nothing to do with the IRB window. However, they are clearly original research, arbitrary and misleading. Linking from them in a contents box is utterly pointless as the reader can't possibly know what the links mean or where they would go.

As for sources, did you read what I wrote above? Of course there are mentions of these matches in numerous reliable sources. There are even lists of results out there, grouped as summer tests/mid-year tests or similar names. However, that isn't enough, and we definitely shouldn't keep articles based on whether we like editing them or because we want to acknowledge the effort that has gone into them.

The crux of the issue is notability - we can't just lump a bunch of stats together and make up a new topic for an article. Does this article's subject meet the general and specific notability criteria? In my view, as I already explained, it doesn't. Do you believe there has been significant prose coverage of the summer tests/mid-year tests as a subject in reliable sources? If you do, can you please point it out, because I have looked and not found it yet. --hippo43 (talk) 22:24, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very Strong KEEP - A dumbass is born every minute, hey hippo, while you are at it, why don't you put EVERY RUGBY RELATED article for deletion? These articles have been here for years, I have contributed to MOST of them and now we have idiots like you trying to get it deleted because he find the terme mid year and end of year to be misconstrued?. The reason we do not USE the word "SUMMER" or "AUTUMN" is because those 'weathers' only apply to the touring team so its seems idiotic to use.. we prefer Mid-year and end of year cause thats when there tests take place, its the middle of the year usually may-July or at the end of the year between October to December. I hope they use this nomination as an EXAMPLE the next time an idiot decides to nominate another rugby related article without thinking it through....Please SNOW this now...--Stemoc (talk) 21:50, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You make a compelling and very articulate argument, based on a rigorous assessment of the notability criteria and a sound understanding of the principles of Wikipedia. Well done. --hippo43 (talk) 22:10, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, looking at your block log, you seem like someone who really understands wikipedia policies. You will be on my mind as the person to ask if i wanted to know a lot more about Asian fetishes ONLY..not rugby.. thank you.--Stemoc (talk) 22:30, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, all very interesting, but still no argument. If you feel like making a civil, coherent contribution, can you address the question of notability? Maybe point us towards the sources that would establish it? --hippo43 (talk) 22:48, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notability?, wait, are you now implying all those tests over the last decade are so are not notable and should be deleted? Now you are really making no sense. Just because they do not fall under some desired "name", they should be deleted?...What sources are you talking about? Look up any rugby site, they will all be listed including those posted above..those not good enough for you? Do you even know rugby or are you just one of those editors with a stick up their posterior trying to act like goody-2-shoes hoping to get noticed?...The page itself has received over 44000 views over the last 90 days and yet you find it "not important"--Stemoc (talk) 23:03, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, please read the notability guidelines and, if you can, please point me towards the coverage of the subject which would show notability. --hippo43 (talk)

Maybe its you that needs or read the notability guidelines but since you lack the know-how to do so, let me do it for you. Firstly

All these games fall under IRB regulations and are approved by the IRB.
Most of these games are given test status by the IRB alone and thus it means that these games play a major part in the IRB World Rankings for all these nations that played in "test-status" matches.
One of the major requirements for inclusion on wikipedia is Verifiability which means that everything is Sourced and if you look at the bottom of every article of the years, everything is SOURCED and VERIFIED.

The only problem at this stage is the NAME. Though IRB calls it the June tests and the November tests, it doesn't necessarily happen in those months only. Grande has provided you sources in relation to this. I honestly do not like the name either, I prefer it to be called 2013 mid-year rugby friendlies so that we can list all those matches that do not fall under their own article including those played by non-test teams as well. The term "test" itself implies only those matches which are played by 2 TEST (international) teams. We already discussed this on that page's talk section regarding which matches that should be included in the article and those which deserve their own article...Anything other matches that is played by a test nation is regarded as part of that team's tour and thus deserves to be included for example Tonga playing a USA club team midweek before their test against USA...There are other IRB Nations Cup qualification tournaments happening as well but since they do not have their own article yet, they also deserve to be included in this "GENERAL" article--Stemoc (talk) 00:00, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As Stemoc said, everything is sourced, the name of the article is fine, we've resolved the problem about the article stating the series, which why it's know as mid-year rugby union tests rather than mid-year rugby test series. As mentioned above, we can't call it Summer internationals because the although the Northern Hemisphere is in summer, the Southern Hemisphere is in winter and vice versa when it comes to the November Internationals. The same reasoning why we can't call it June internationals because most of the time the mid-year tests starts in May.

With regards to this year, every source is of the Third-party regolations, heck every match has it's own report included linking readers to a reliable source. Thus there is no need for the article to be deleted. hippo43 is making a fuss over nothing! Rugby.change (talk) 00:09, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you both failed to address Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Verifiability is a straw man - no one has argued the data is not accurate, or not verifiable, but that the subject is not notable enough for inclusion. Please read and address WP:N and WP:SPORTSEVENT. If you think this subject (not just matches within it) has received the significant coverage required by reliable sources, beyond just stats, please point us towards the relevant sources. --hippo43 (talk) 00:19, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As we said, officially the mid-year tests are know as the June Internationals "IRB Match Official Appointments for British & Irish Lions tour to Australia, IRB Pacific Nations Cup and June internationals" but due to consistant matches being played outside of June I.E England v Barbarians on May 26, the article is known as the mid-year test as it during the Mid-year international window, witch is real Official title (reference above). However many reliable website mention June Internationals as the Mid-year tests for the mid-year Test window on June 10, All of these referees have been appointed to mid-year Tests and Mid-year refs appointed there is nothing else to discuss. When will you admit you are wrong, and that more people wants to Keep than Support. Rugby.change (talk) 00:58, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will try again. You have failed to address Wikipedia's notability guidelines. No one has argued the data is not accurate, or not verifiable, but that the subject is not notable enough for inclusion. Please read and address WP:N and WP:SPORTSEVENT. If you think this subject (not just matches within it) has received the significant coverage required by reliable sources, beyond just stats, please point us towards the relevant sources. --hippo43 (talk) 01:00, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If we are getting the wrong end of the stick, the please go ahead and explain as simple as you can make it! Rugby.change (talk) 01:03, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Read this guideline - WP:N then this one - WP:SPORTSEVENT. (Maybe also WP:NSEASONS)

They are the guidelines that relate to whether a subject is notable enough to merit an article. Please carefully consider the main question - has the topic received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject - and come back and give your opinion on it. --hippo43 (talk) 01:11, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think Rugby.change has just given you the evidence you wanted in this link. The IRB specifically refers to the (badly named) "June internationals", all of the matches for which are listed here. If the IRB, the global governing body for this sport which we so dearly love, considers the matches worthy of grouping together, then I believe so should we. – Pee Jay 01:54, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, he hasn't demonstrated significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. Where are the reliable sources that discuss this group of games as a subject, beyond simply listing games or stats? --hippo43 (talk) 02:34, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I listed significant coverage from various sources above. ESPN, Setanta, Rugby Canada, The Guardian... What more do you want? Grande (talk) 12:44, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment Ok, I've read the guideline and I still believe the article is notable. The first thing the guidelines says "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." Yes the article has received significant coverage in Reliable sources which are all relevant to the article. I personally added the references to the article myself, originally it included no references. I recently added a few external link as-well. On the WP:SPORTSEVENT article it says "The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below." and again I will repeat myself, in the opening text, references are used to back information up. Every match has a report, backing those details up. From this, there physically can't be anything else to change. Once tours are finished, the overview section will be referenced with the tour result (obviously cant do it now, tours sill in progress). The most important thing here, is that the article if informing people on the test taking place. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that what Wikipedia is for - informing people on information. To be fair, everything is consistent with past years.

To conclude NOTHING NEEDS TO CHANGE!!!! Rugby.change (talk) 02:04, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't demonstrated significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. There are reports of individual matches referenced, but where are the reliable sources that discuss this group of games as a subject, beyond simply listing games or stats? --hippo43 (talk) 02:34, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There doesn't have to be one. Along as reports for individual fixtures are there and references for tour announcements are there, it doesn't matter about anything else. If it helps, there's and external link to list of International fixtures on ESPN at the bottom of the article! Rugby.change (talk) 02:38, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, the notability guideline says essentially the opposite. --hippo43 (talk) 02:53, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per PeeJay, Grande, Stemoc and others. --Bob247 (talk) 22:32, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Right, I'm out of here. This discussion is clearly over, having reached a decent level of consensus. No point arguing my case any further. If you need me, you know where I'll be. – Pee Jay 03:01, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Recommend a SNOW close. Clearly these matches are covered in multiple reliable sources (as per Hamish59, Grande and Stemoc). This isn't an artificial construct (the June international window is stipulated by the IRB to ensure that domestic sides release players for international fixtures). From reading the discussion, it looks to me like the nominator doesn't like that the article lists this particular group of matches together (even though there is NO doubt that the individual matches are themselves notable), but rather than discuss it at the article talk page, or at the WP:RU talk page, decided to throw the baby out with the bathwater and propose this ridiculous AfD. Hippo43 has wasted a lot of people's time because he chose this more WP:DRAMATIC method of raising his concerns. - Shudde ^talk 01:29, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with Shudde's last comment that Hippo43 has chosen a disruptive method to try to make a larger point. In case anyone is interested in further evidence that the June tests should be logically grouped together in one article, there is a terrific article on ESPN from June 2012 that discusses the IRB's calendar for June tests "False dawn for Pacific Nations". The article several times refers to the June tests (and also the Nov tests) as a group:
- "the recent action-paced tours window"
- "the Pacific nations are destined to live off scraps in the June window"
- "the implementation of the '2012-2019 IRB Tours and Test schedule'"
- "open to the same kind of treatment during the November international window"
- "the ever-popular end-of-year clashes"
- "the Pacific nations were already assured of exposure to the top sides during the November international window". Barryjjoyce (talk) 00:50, 18 June 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. Since no consensus has been reached. (WP:NAC) JJ98 (Talk) 07:59, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kimi Finster

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

Only one source. No out of universe notability. Article had its AFD in 2005 and was kept since then. I believe that this character does not pass WP:GNG, because of lack of sources. JJ98 (Talk) 08:28, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 10:31, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 12 June 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. --BDD (talk) 20:07, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mikey benz

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

lacking reliable verifiable sources, not notable, fails WP:ENT Taroaldo ✉ 06:51, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 07:09, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 07:09, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article has no references and little indicia of notability - A google search does not show any news articles about this person. The writer appears to have a COI, as most of the content of the article is about his non-notable family. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:27, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I could find nothing at Google News Archive. The article is a mess and the title is wrong (needs a capital B), but not worth fixing if it's going to be deleted anyhow. --MelanieN (talk) 18:24, 18 June 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. SarahStierch (talk) 21:29, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Checkmarx (company)

AfDs for this article:

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

This article has already been deleted five times, most recently on 30 April. Its latest incarnation is under this new title, presumably to get around the salting of Checkmarx. Past versions of the article relied heavily on primary sources or misrepresentation of sources as independent. The sources look marginally better this time (or maybe I'm just misremembering…? Could an admin compare this version to the deleted ones please?), though even the ones which aren't primary seem like lightly reworked press releases. I'm therefore leaning towards delete again, and would appreciate further opinions. Psychonaut (talk) 06:50, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete the article per G4, salt this title too and indef the creator as WP:NOTHERE - it's obvious this new title is an attempt to circumvent the salting of another title. They are clearly the same company (for non-admins, the lede was discussed in the last AFD and this one is basically word-for-word) and that sort of thing that needs to go via DRV. Stalwart111 07:07, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 07:07, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 07:07, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 07:07, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 07:08, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 07:08, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: As this problem has persisted since 2007 I have identified (some of) the accounts responsible and posted a sockpuppet investigation report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Grenoble jojo and a spam report at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#checkmarx.com. —Psychonaut (talk) 09:27, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete pretty clearly created just to get around salted title. If they do it again I guess the next step is adding Checkmarx to the edit filter. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:29, 12 June 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. Michig (talk) 06:48, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Eugene Dokes

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

Dubious notability and promotional tone. The list of unformatted, non-inline refs includes sales sites like Amazon, self editable sources and other non-RS. Failed politician, non-notable author, not notable enough as businessman or academic Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:28, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 07:09, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Just pure advertising and promotional spam, unable to find any RS on this author except buying his books. Most links are to "buy" his book on amazon, google etc. Tyros1972 Talk 08:11, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 07:09, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The only thing I see that looks like notability is his involvement in (the somewhat POV account of) the St. Charles County caucus controversy. Perhaps should be regarded as at most BLP1E. And his role seems less central in an NPOV source, Steven Yaccino (March 17, 2012). "Disruption Closes a Missouri Caucus Before Vote". New York Times. (Surely not a speedy candidate in any case.) —teb728 t c 08:50, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable, dubious doctorate to boot. Hairhorn (talk) 12:00, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems to fail every notability guideline in the book. Certainly does not meet WP:POLITICIAN and I can't see that he'd meet basic WP:GNG either. Wholly promotional, so we'd be contributing to his notability rather than documenting it. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:40, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT DeleteWhy should he not be noted as being the first Black Chair? That is Notable... Also, he is currently serving on USCCR. That is noteworthy, I can see some taking issue with Book Info- but there are other authors on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.81.211.217 (talk) 13:16, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable and this is clearly a promotional article.Deb (talk) 15:18, 18 June 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. Sandstein 07:06, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Salt (Wuthering Heights album)

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

With Wuthering Heights (band) deleted, I find it hard to rationalize its album is notable. Only the allmusic reference on the article now is reliable but does not confer notability. Curb Chain (talk) 07:01, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (converse) @ 08:54, 28 May 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) 00:58, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wuthering Heights (band), currently leaning "keep"; the article had been deleted via prod but then restored, so we can consider the first sentence of this nomination struck. As for the second, in addition to the Allmusic review mentioned I found another review here that was published in the Seattle Post Intelligencer, and it was nominated by Metal Storm for one of its awards here. Just what I found from a quick search. postdlf (talk) 04:59, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wuthering Heights (band) has now been closed as keep. So with the band notable and multiple sources found, it looks like we don't have any deletion rationale left. postdlf (talk) 05:59, 8 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 · · 06:28, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Wuthering Heights (band). A couple of reviews from reliable sources but not enough content for a standalone article. --Michig (talk) 07:02, 19 June 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) czar · · 19:01, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Léo Rispal

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

does not meet WP:BIO I suggest an uncontroversial deletion of the article about French singer Léo Rispal :

there's a lack of significant coverage on him in the French media : he's mentioned in merely one business review (ChartsinFrance), others (including "Age des célébrités" and "Minutebuzz") are non-editorial automatically generated articles
he won a singing competition program in 2010 on a minor broadcast (the 2009 winner does not have a Wikipedia page - the program has been cancelled after 2010) and did not get any media exposure since
his French Wikipédia page has been deleted

GilbertMontenegro (talk) 16:29, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 28 May 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) 00:57, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to meet notability standards as per 1 & 9 of WP:MUSBIO. Sources need improvement though. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:22, 4 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 · · 06:25, 12 June 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-admin closure) czar · · 19:12, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Scriptorium Fonts

AfDs for this article:

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

This article was listed for AfD back in 2007, and as soon as AfD was closed by nominator, this article hasn't been touched. I see no notability, almost no real external references to the company and a small business of 6 employees, barring exceptional circumstances, doesn't strike me as encyclopedic. UnrepentantTaco (talk) 20:44, 29 May 2013 (UTC) [Edit reverted as per WP:BE and [56]. Unscintillating (talk) 03:49, 24 June 2013 (UTC)][reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (lecture) @ 23:13, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (post) @ 23:13, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (state) @ 23:13, 29 May 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) 00:51, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As an organization it's been going for just over 20 years. Longevity of an organization is something to consider generally. 20 years is probably not enough for per se notability especially for a for-profit company. --Lquilter (talk) 17:36, 5 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 · · 06:13, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The notability here is not the longevity or the number of employees (a ridiculous criteria for qualification), but the widespread dispersal of the company's product in the media. This company makes fonts which are widely used in popular movies, on book covers and in video games. Some of these fonts are literally everywhere. The ubiquity of a product is clearly relevant for inclusion. Plus this page has already been reviewed and passed over for deletion once and it is more substantial now than it was then, and the person proposing deletion seems to be engaged in a vandalistic deletion campaign. Thalkyudes (talk) 17:18, 17 June 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. ^King Jakob _C2 01:31, 21 June 2013 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Dianne de Las Casas

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

I came across this article after seeing an AfD for her daughter, Kid Chef Eliana. I'd looked at her mother's article with the idea of merging the daughter's article with the mother's, but saw a huge amount of puffery going on in the article along with serious linkspam. These were the same issues I saw with the daughter's article and a search didn't bring up much that would show that Dianne de Las Casas merits an article herself. The article in its original state ([57]) claims that she'd had multiple reviews and awards, but I'm not able to find any such awards, at least not any that would give notability. I can't seem to find a plethora of reviews either. I found two articles and one review, but that's not enough to give notability- especially since one of the articles was written by a small local paper. There just isn't enough here to give notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:46, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The awards are now listed, but none of them are the type that would give notability. The ones from Storytelling World (including the win) and the ones from the "Children's Music Web Awards" just aren't really that big of an award as far as Wikipedia goes. Most awards are considered to be non-notable as far as Wikipedia goes. It doesn't mean that someone didn't work hard, just that the award isn't considered notable. Out of all of the awards out there for any subject (including things such as the Oscars and Heismann Trophy), I'd say that only 5% of them are big enough that they would extend notability. Of those 5%, less than 1% give the type of notability that would merit a keep on that basis alone. The NAPPA honor award would help give notability, but I can't find any record of her having received it. The website for NAPPA brings up nothing as far as her name goes or the name of the product (Jump, Jiggle & Jam) that supposedly won the award. I found a mention on parenthood.com, but none on the actual contest website. This award isn't the type that would keep an article on this basis, though. As far as the one for Gambit Weekly goes, that's an award given out by a local magazine. It might count as a RS, but the award also isn't notable enough to really give notability. There is a mention on Oprah.com goes, that doesn't mention de Las Casas at all. When you get down to it, the sources are primarily local (Hanford Sentinel, Gambit magazine) and other than a few trade reviews (Kirkus, School Library Journal, ForeWord Reviews), the sources are pretty paltry. Teacher Librarian and the SLJ interview are the only two that are immediately usable. I'm hesitant about the textbook as we have no way of verifying what the actual content is. I did find where she's listed in the book in the table of contents, but we can't really see what the article really says. Is it an article about her? By her? Is the book just a listing of various people ala an encyclopedia or is it more in-depth? Was it all taken directly from her (not quite like a press release, but along those lines). I'm a little leery when you consider that this didn't come up as a source in JSTOR or Google Scholar and there's no way to verify the content in any way. Salem Press is considered to be an academic publisher, but again- I'm leery about anything that I can't verify at least partially content-wise. The coverage here is just so light and not easily verified when you get down to it. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:44, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I did a search on the editor name that's creating these articles and found evidence to suggest that the editor is indeed Dianne de Las Casas. I've left a note on her page cautioning her against creating and editing articles about herself and her daughter (if this is her), as this can be seen as self-promotion.

Delete After doing some searches I'm inclined to agree with Tokyogirl79. There are some event notices out there for storytelling sessions etc., some brief book reviews (one rather negative in "Teacher Librarian" 2011), but nothing that approaches WP:AUTHOR notability. AllyD (talk) 05:56, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 07:11, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 07:11, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing: The claim of notability here is small- very small. I think that a case for deletion can be argued, but not at the expense of other articles here on Wikipedia that have similar sourcing issues. Odds are high that in a year or two this article could still be deleted due to a lack of notability, but I'll bite the bullet on this one in the hopes of saving other articles with a borderline notability. I am still very, VERY concerned about the high conflict of interest/spam issues here, given that it's almost completely certain that DLCstory is Dianne de Las Casas herself and I'm very uncomfortable with the fact that given the initial state of the articles, her reason for being here is to promote herself and her daughter. In the hopes that she'll read this, I'd like to caution her against editing her and her daughter's articles directly and would recommend that she go through the talk pages instead. I'd also like her to check out WP:RS and WP:EL to see what is usable as a RS and what is and isn't considered to be WP:LINKSPAM when it comes to external links. Here's a rundown of the sources for anyone coming into this that's wondering why I'm withdrawing this. Essentially there are *just* enough articles in peer-reviewed journals to merit a keep, albeit a tentative one.

Sources

Debatable

[58] This is a small, local paper in Hanford, California. DdLC was a resident of LeMoore and as such this can be seen as local coverage. It also seems to be a notification of an event.
Great Lives in History: Asian and Pacific Islander Americans: This one I'd argue is debatable mostly because we have no way of knowing the actual content for the reasons I stated above. We have no way of knowing if it's an article by her, of her, or an article based upon press releases.
[59] I'll agree that a NAPPA award can give notability. I'm leery about this not being from the actual award page though, especially considering that a search on the NAPPA site doesn't bring her up at all. This is also an award on the state level and not the national level, so there's a bit of uncertainty as far as that goes.
ForeWord review. FW is a trade. These still count in the very, very technical sense when it comes to notability, although these have become greatly depreciated when it comes down to RS and keeping an article. They haven't become invalid as a RS, although that's just a matter of when and not if.
[60] Kirkus is another trade review, same concerns. KR is one of those trades that has become even more depreciated than the other trades, as they've come under fire for their review practices.
[61] Another Kirkus review.
[62] School Library Journal. While the interview is good, this still runs the issue of trade reviews.
[63] Booklist, same issues as a trade review.
[64] This is the Midwest Book Review. It's considered a trade and a dubious one at that. I've heard more editors on Wikipedia voice concerns over their reviews and more than one person has considered them to be outright unusable. One of the chief concerns is that they're considered to be a positive review factory, among other things. However there's no outright consensus on this trade, so it could still technically be considered usable.

Usable

[65] This is one of the few usable ones in the article. It's a lengthy interview with the SLJ.
Voices: The Journal of New York Folklore. This is a peer-reviewed journal, so it can be usable for notability regardless of the length.
Teacher Librarian. Another peer-reviewed journal.

Unusable

[66], [67], [68] Ultimately this award isn't considered to really give notability in the slightest as far as Wikipedia goes.
[69] This Oprah.com article only briefly mentions the reading month and doesn't mention DdLC at all.
[70] Barnes & Nobles isn't usable as a RS and the review on the article is the SLJ review that was already linked. (I removed this and the Oprah link.)

Ultimately there's really only three sources that I'd consider to be out and out usable, however there's enough dubious sources that I'm willing to withdraw at this point. Again, this is mostly out of concern for the other articles that could be deleted if this one is. This "win" would be a greater loss for Wikipedia as a whole when it comes to sourcing notability for other authors. I still greatly advise against DLCstory continuing to edit the page, however. I'm trying to assume good faith, but it's very difficult when the original version could have been potentially speedied as spam. I don't mean this to come across as a speech, I just really want to stress to her how badly it comes across when someone potentially uploads articles about themselves filled with PR speak and linkspam. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:16, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Admin note Since at least one other editor has made a substantive comment and !vote in good faith at this AFD, it is not being speedily closed as a result of this withdrawal. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:57, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I really feel this article does not have enough notability and can be deleted without jeopardizing other articles. I also must disagree with the SLJ Interview entry being notable. It appears to be part of a blog network of SLJ with the specific blog being called "Practically Paradise" which was formerly hosted on blog.slj.com and now resides on its own ___domain practicallyparadise.org. Should these blog entries hold the same weight as an article within the monthly SLJ Magazine? My experience with blogging shows bloggers are begging for this type of thing, in this case an interview with a published author, to build content for their blog. This type of coverage can be easy to get for yourself with a simple email to the blogger and doesn't necessary say the person is recognized by the world at large. I really don't think the coverage of this person is significant enough to have a stand alone article. User226 21:43, 14 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by User226 (talk • contribs)

Very weak keep, but improve the citing of the article. it seems that the SLJ reference isn't exactly reliable, since it's part of a blog network, however, the coverage in the journals is probably just enough to save the article. More sources should be found, however. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:35, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It seems that both users have concerns over the same source. Could we re-review that source? Either way even if that SLJ Source is capped there are still 2 sources that are considered notable which warrants the article at Keep Status unless i've missed anything. MM (Report findings) ^{(Past espionage)} 09:35, 18 June 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) 12:09, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Giuliano Preparata Medals

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

Fringe award with insufficient coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. The article for the awarding organization has been deleted following an AfD.[71] Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 05:22, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Lack of substantial coverage in multiple independent secondary sources. "Award" presented by a non-notable fringe group and of little significance outside of the group itself. Fails all notability guidelines by a wide mile. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:22, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete DV says it all. Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:FRINGE. --Randykitty (talk) 07:16, 16 June 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) 12:06, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The International Society for Condensed Matter Nuclear Science Prizes

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

Prize issued by a fringe body with insufficient coverage in mainstream sources to establish notability. The awarding organization's article has been deleted following an AfD.[72] Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 05:17, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Lack of substantial coverage in multiple independent secondary sources. "Award" presented by a non-notable fringe group and of little significance outside of the group itself. Fails all notability guidelines by a wide mile. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:23, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete DV says it all. Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:FRINGE. --Randykitty (talk) 07:16, 16 June 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. WP:FRINGE does not neccessarily exclude a topic from inclusion into Wikipedia. However, I do not think fringe applies in the way we'd all like it to. Despite being a fringe science, Cold Fusion actually serves a prominent place in popular culture, science fiction, and fringe science alike. A conference on the subject would not neccessarily fall to the levels of fringe, then, as would a conference about Hollow Earth. From a pure WP:GNG standpoint, this AFD has resulted in a huge improvement to the article which makes me question at least some of the delete !votes which prempted these improvements. In fact, most of the !votes came before these improvements. Taking into the fact that the new references were highly discussed on this AFD before being introduced to the article, though, means that I cannot discount those votes on their timing alone. Several folks have said that WP:GNG is not met if the sources are not about the conference. I quote GNG "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." The only other argument to delete, then, is that the coverage is not significant enough to write a decent article but the current version of the article defeats that argument as well. Thusly, I see a discussion that has stronger arguments towards keep. If it were a !vote count, this may be a no consensus. But as an examination of the argument, we have a keep result. v/r - T P 02:06, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

International Conference on Condensed Matter Nuclear Science

AfDs for this article:

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

Fringe topic with insufficient coverage in mainstream sources to establish notability. [N.B. This article appears to have been subject to an earlier AfD[73] which decided to delete it.] Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 05:11, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are three reliable references that cover it. --Nowa (talk) 09:30, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I could not find any. The three passing press mentions in the article fall well short of establishing notability. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 11:07, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. Based on Edcolins suggestion, I looked through Google Scholar to find an additional reference that spoke more directly to the significance of the conference itself (at least in the field of science studies). I've added the material to the article.--Nowa (talk) 01:49, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, I see searching JSTOR using the alternative conference title returns 4 hits, including the article you mention. I have modified the material you added to the article as it misrepresented the source. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 06:23, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How did I misrepresent the source? I thought I had captured the author's points accurately.--Nowa (talk) 19:07, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then there is possibly a WP:COMPETENCE issue here. Focussing on the word "crackpot", your edit included the words "a significant number of attendees were scientists who could not be easily dismissed as crackpots" while the source itself (in the only use of the word "crackpot" in its own voice) stated "we are left with the impression that, as far as normal science is concerned, CF is of interest to crackpots, pseudo-scientists, frauds and a few sociologists of science" – your edit is thus a blatant misrepresentation. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 19:52, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So are you saying that in order to evaluate my edit, you did a word search on the paper to see how it used the word “crackpot”? And when you found out how the author used it, you concluded that I misrepresented what the author was saying? --Nowa (talk) 02:15, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 06:53, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. More than 200 hits for "International Conference on Condensed Matter Nuclear Science" on Google Scholar [74], almost 50 on Google Books [75]. The other name for the same conference "International Conference on Cold Fusion" (to which the article should probably be moved) gives even more hits: more than one thousand on Google Scholar [76] and about 9,000 on Google Books [77]. --Edcolins (talk) 16:42, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Classic WP:GOOGLEHITS argument, IRWolfie- (talk)

WP:GOOGLEHITS also says "Note further that searches using Google's specialty tools, such as Google Books, Google Scholar, and Google News are more likely to return reliable sources that can be useful in improving articles than the default Google web search." Anyway, let me look into these 200 + 50 + 1000 + 9000 relevant hits on Google Scholar and Google Books. I would be rather surprised that there are not at least some reliable sources establishing notability amongst these hits... --Edcolins (talk) 17:22, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, the three references (New York Times 1992, Simon 1999, Goodstein 2010) in the "Reception" section appear quite good already to justify a standalone article. --Edcolins (talk) 20:10, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have just added a fourth one from the Wired magazine, 1998. Not just a passing reference. A mainstream journalist spent four days at the conference and reported thereon in the mainstream media. Ten paragraphs from "In a huge, grandiose convention center I found about 200 extremely conventional-looking scientists, (...)" to "(...) As far as I could tell, I was the only mainstream journalist who bothered to attend. To the outside world, it didn't exist." --Edcolins (talk) 21:12, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have added yet another reference (on the third conference in Nagoya, Japan): Sutel, Seth (October 26, 1992). "At International Conference, Debate Continues Over Cold Fusion Claims". Associated Press. The story was picked up by other newspapers.[78].--Edcolins (talk) 20:22, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG requires that there are sources which "address the subject directly in detail". The AP source is neither detailed nor direct on the topic of the conference itself; the Wired source is more promising. However, even taken together with the other reasonable sources my view is that on balance there is not enough to pass the notability threshold. There is certainly enough to merit inclusion in the main cold fusion article. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 12:06, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do think the AP source addresses the subject directly in detail. The article was published right after the conference, its title is to the point, and it discusses in detail the debates which took place at the conference. The number of coffee breaks, whether coffee or tea or both were available during the breaks, etc. are obviously not discussed in the article, but I suppose that's not what we should understand by the conference itself.

In a further source (Kowalski, 2004), in my opinion a reliable source, a historian of science wrote: "(...) the conference proceedings would be a fine addition to the collections of our Niels Bohr Library." At least for the history of science, the conference is notable. In my opinion, this justifies a standalone article. --Edcolins (talk) 17:36, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See also my renaming proposal on the talk page. --Edcolins (talk) 14:54, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. In terms of notability, see the citation information above. This is part of a general attack on Cold Fusion articles. The article on the parent organisation has already been deleted. This particular article was created (after discussion) to "unload" some details from the Cold fusion article. Within wiki it is referenced mostly (only?) from Cold fusion, which is classified as Fringe science -- which suggests a hierarchy of center-frontier-fringe -- and notes that a particular theory can move in either direction. Cold Fusion/LENR continues to be covered in a few reliable sources (recently, mostly in connection with the Energy Catalyzer) -- including Forbes, Wired (UK), Popular Science, Physorg, and in a number of blogs which have been deemed sufficiently reliable : Bardi and Siegel in particular. In addition to independent contributors associated with major Universities (eg Hagelstein, MIT), The University of Missouri has recently established the SKINR research center, and is working actively with NRL (US) and ENEA (Italy). National Instruments publicly supports work on Cold Fusion. NASA has included CF/LENR as a promising technology. SKINR, NI, SRI and ENEA recently made a presentation to the European Parliament including slides of work in progress, which indicate increasing reproducability (cathodes which worked at ENEA an NRL also worked at SKINR): their best run had a COP (gain over input) of 30 .. and ran for 960 hours. http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-8XTez5ZLM3k/Ua5jCY1o6DI/AAAAAAAAJo0/KW6X70U1xIc/s1600/P1070417.jpg In a recent Google+ interview Al Gore commented (in response to a question about Hot Fusion) that there are "very intriguing explorations of what used to be called cold fusion". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_eI0I-YK4s&feature=player_embedded (at about 19 minutes). Alanf777 (talk) 20:47, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Update -- Official report on European Parliament presentation is at http://www.enea.it/it/Ufficio-Bruxelles/news/new-advancements-on-the-fleischmann-pons-effect-paving-the-way-for-a-potential-new-clean-renewable-energy-source (links to individual slides). Note that McKubre(SRI)'s work is supported by DARPA and DRTA. Alanf777 (talk) 15:25, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's just a meeting of the Italian ENEA agency with an Italian member of the European Parliament... see Talk:Cold_fusion#New_Sources. I can only suppose that their "increasing reproducability" results were rejected at serious scientific journals because there were full of methodology errors and similar, and they are forced to lobby directly to friendly politicians.... --Enric Naval (talk) 21:20, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Could you point him out, please? http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-sMj4xRCysxA/Ua4Z2cWSxMI/AAAAAAAAJjE/A5vdAYzMJ6A/s1600/P1070365.jpg The room looks pretty full to me. (Gallery didn't work)

And you misrepresent what's in Cold Fusion / Talk -- "the presentation was introduced (and concluded by) Edit Herczog, MEP, Member ITRE Committee (from Hungary), and a presentation was made by Herbert Von Bose, European Commission, DG RTD, Director Industrial Technologies (eg)http://ec.europa.eu/nanotechnology/pdf/swedish-presidency-event/von_bose.pdf (German, not Italian either). (AlanF777)" Alanf777 (talk) 20:57, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And to support my contention that CF is frontier not fringe :

In January 2013 NASA Aeronautics Research Institute (NARI) awarded a one-year $150,000 "seedling" grant to Doug Wells (Langley Research Center) for "Low Energy Nuclear Reaction Aircraft".^[3]^[4] Alanf777 (talk) 18:56, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. There is no significant coverage in WP:SECONDARY sources found in the ~207 hits for "International Conference on Condensed Matter Nuclear Science" on Google Scholar [79] (almost all of which are WP:PRIMARY). — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 16:57, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed the same thing about the primary sources in the raw Google searches. If you go to Google books and filter out “proceedings of”, you get about 2,000 secondary sources that reference the conference. Many discuss the conference itself, nature of the attendees, what was presented, and the implications of all three.--Nowa (talk) 21:34, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually you don't. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 22:34, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what you mean. Could you be more specific?--Nowa (talk) 00:05, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You don't get "about 2,000 secondary sources that reference the conference." — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 01:58, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is not much coverage of the conference itself outside of books that specialize in cold fusion. Sources describe it as a fringe conference where believers can exchange ideas away from the world and without hearing any criticism. This causes crackpot theories to flourish in these conferences. It has literally zero repercusion in the real world. The best sources are old, and they only document how the conference removed all the critics and skeptics in the first years. A section of cold fusion is more than adequate to cover it. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:30, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but around Sept 2012 there were complaints about too much detail. That's why this sub-article was created. Do you now agree that the table of conferences can go in the article? Alanf777 (talk) 21:05, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the more recent secondary references deal with the conference as an interesting phenomena in and of itself. See for example:

On Fact and Fraud: Cautionary Tales from the Front Lines of Science Princeton University Press, 2010.
How Science Works: Teaching and Learning in the Science Classroom Continuum International Publishing Group, 2011.
Five decades of research in nuclear science Meliora Press, 2009.--Nowa (talk) 22:05, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First is actually about Cold fusion, using this conference to set the scene. The second is about the Fleischmann and Pons conference for the most part, the snippet I can't view, nor can you. Third is a snippet, not meeting GNG also. Nothing showing significant coverage. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:50, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have good points regarding the second and third reference. I respectfully disagree with your characterization of the first reference. ”Significant coverage” per wp:gng 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.”

Regarding the first reference, the subject of the the article is addressed directly “On December 6-9, 1993, the Fourth International Conference took place in Hawaii...” The reference addresses the subject in detail, “At least 250 scientists took part.” No original research is needed to extract the content, “The founders of the field, Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischman, were in attendance...” There was more than a trivial mention, “Contrary to appearances, however, this was no normal scientific conference.” It did not have to be the main topic of the source material, “Cold fusion had become a pariah field....” Hence the first reference supports general notability.
Regarding the second reference, I found access to the full article. Having read it, I now agree that it does little to support general notability. I offer instead this Wall Street Journal article which does meet all of the criteria for general notability. Begley, Sharon “Cold Fusion Isn't Dead, It's Just Withering From Scientific Neglect”, Wall Street Journal, September 3, 2005
Regarding the third reference, you make a good point about snippet views. I have contacted the University of Rochester to get a copies of the relevant pages. Hopefully I will receive them prior to the end of this deletion discussion.

In the meantime, the article already has references from Times of India, Social Studies of Science, New York Times, and Wired (recently added by Edcollins ) which all meet the Wikipedia standards for supporting general notability.

If we are still in disagreement regarding the general notability of the subject, please let me know.--Nowa (talk) 01:34, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Nowa. Now, there is yet a further reference from The Associated Press, 1992. In the light of these recent additions, I would be good to have some more feedback from those who initially "voted" to delete. The Wired reference is particularly good IMHO. See the paragraph in the "Reception" section. --Edcolins (talk) 09:16, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"The best sources are old"? So what? --Edcolins (talk) 09:16, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

The claimed rationale for this AfD was:

1. "Fringe topic..."

- No rule against that on Wikipedia.

2. "...with insufficient coverage in mainstream sources to establish notability."

- About 1,760 results on Google Books; sources as mainstream as can be expected for a specialist field of study

3. "...[N.B. This article appears to have been subject to an earlier AfD[80] which decided to delete it.]"

- No need to N.B. that if we're judging the article on its own merits. Silent Key (talk) 17:22, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Despite WP:GOOGLEHITS and WP:LOTSOFSOURCES, lack of substantial coverage in multiple reliable independent sources. The hits produced by Google are exclusively tangential, trivial or routine, or from unreliable fringe sources. No evidence of notability outside a tiny subsector of the fringe community, not even as a significant fringe event. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:30, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GOOGLEHITS and WP:LOTSOFSOURCES are links to a Wikipedia essay. Essays are not policies, or even guidelines. Silent Key (talk) 11:28, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the JSTOR result is more telling (4 hits, which boils down to 2 effectively since two pieces are the same, and one just lists the conference in a general chronology). The question that matters is: is there a reasonable number of good independent secondary sources discussing the conference itself (rather than mentioning it in passing or using it as a "hook" for piece on cold fusion)? I maintained there were not in the nomination, and nobody has produced evidence to the contrary. Or am I wrong? If so, could somebody point to just three (say) solid gold sources which establish this topic's notability. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 11:54, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions is an essay because we don't generally have guidelines and policies about bad arguments to make. The reason Dominus can cite this essay is because it lists classic fallacious arguments used at deletion discussions. Trying to dismiss it because it's an essay will fall on deaf ears with any admin closing this discussion. Any seasoned AfD editor can easily spot these bad arguments, IRWolfie- (talk) 23:52, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Classic WP:GNG fail. Lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Keep arguments are classic fallacious arguments as has already been pointed out, IRWolfie- (talk) 23:53, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Whether it is justified or not, I do not think people are aware how much they appear to have an axe to grind with marking this article for deletion. If there's a page on SantaCon, what harm is there in having one on this conference? This conference will be of clear interest to anyone researching the topic of cold fusion, whether they find its claims convincing or complete pseudoscience. modify 02:15, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF WP:ITSINTERESTING WP:NOHARM Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 14:17, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alexbrn, those are all valid points about arguments to avoid in an AfD. Shall we focus on WP:GOODARG instead? It seems to me that the key issue we have been debating is WP:NOREFS. Would you agree? And given that multiple editors have found multiple references since the AfD has begun, it would be hard to demonstrate “...that none (i. e. references) can ever likely be found.” Would you also agree? If so, then the real issue is whether or not the multiple independent references found support general notability wp:gng. Those in favor of KEEP, including myself, have provided point by point analysis of the reference showing that they directly meet wp:gng. Those that are in favor of DELETE have merely responded with the arguments:

The references are old (which is not requirement of GNG)
There are lots of references which are not suitable (also not a criteria of GNG)
Some databases don't have many references (also not a criteria of GNG)
Some references are duplicative of other references (also not a criteria of GNG)
The subject of the article is not the main topic of the references (explicitly not a criteria of GNG)

All that being said, I've enjoyed the debate and learned a great deal about both the subject of the article and Wikipedia policies. Whatever the closing admin's decision is, I appreciate the discussion.--Nowa (talk) 01:12, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think your summary of positions is neutral or accurate - however the closing admin can decide for themselves so rather than get into the weeds let me just state (again) that I think the main issue here is notability. WP:GNG states we need multiple good sources, and also requires that "sources address the subject directly in detail" (my emphasis). During the discussion some better sourcing has been discovered by Edcolins, but even so in my judgement we have just not got enough to cross the notability threshold; the material would be better as section in the main CF article (see WP:NOPAGE). Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 13:07, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alexbrn, the main CF article is way too long already (134K). It seems that WP:PARENTSIZE plays in favour of a standalone article (besides WP:GNG on which we obviously still disagree...), all the more since you agree that the material contained in the article does belong on Wikipedia. --Edcolins (talk) 20:04, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Two more references added (Deseret News 1990, LA Times 1990). --Edcolins (talk) 22:17, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alex, see the further reference added in the "External links" section, i.e. the media coverage of the first conference by local Salt Lake City news stations in 1990. It is an amazingly detailed coverage directly addressing the first conference, incl. the critics, the news conferences, the number of reporters, the exclusion of some reporters from a news conference, the "battles" between scientists during the conference, etc. --Edcolins (talk) 10:35, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you've linked a lot of video and the conference is mentioned in a small proportion of it, so it is not WP:INDEPTH but rather in passing (generally in the context of the wider fusion story which concentrates on the science claims and the main players). Do we have news coverage from other years, or is there a lack of WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE ? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 10:42, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The six videos evidently provide an in-depth coverage of the first conference itself, and also explain the media frenzy around the conference back 23 years ago. To me, the WP:INDEPTH threshold is clearly met. Except for the last two minutes of the sixth video (which discusses a dispute following the conference), the remaining 48 minutes or so exclusively relate to the conference, in detail. As to WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, footnote 105 of the main CF article reads "Goodstein 1994, the first three conferences are commented in detail in Huizenga 1993, pp. 237–247, 274–285, specially 240, 275–277" (my emphasis). I have unfortunately no access to Huizenga 1993, but I have no reason to doubt its accuracy. --Edcolins (talk) 14:29, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't think we quite agree on what "in depth" is, but given the amount (if not weight) of sourcing I am modifying my position to being able to live with this article being a standalone one (although my preference would be for it to be deleted and its content merged into CF). And thanks, BTW, for your excellent work finding sources. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 14:55, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, it was quite interesting searching for sources on this topic. I have to say I very much appreciate the civility of the whole debate here. Thanks! So, you can live with a standalone article on the topic. Do you mean that you are considering withdrawing the nomination? --Edcolins (talk) 18:34, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suggested in the article that one way of doing this is to create a Wikipedia:Subpages -- but I see that is now discouraged : Wikipedia:Do not use subpages. Since this article has more detail than is appropriate for the main article, and yet is of interest to those wishing to investigate the history and background of CF, I see no reason at all to delete it. (See my vote above) Alanf777 (talk) 18:49, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alexbrn, it makes no difference to me whether you are able to codify the reasons I've provided; those tags do not decrease their value, they simply show that this place has become too legalistic. I urge any admin to look at the heart of the matter -- this article is relevant to someone looking into cold fusion, and it contains manifestly verifiable information. Full stop. modify 03:25, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not merely legalistic: making an argument in an AfD which manages to combine an imputation of the nominator's motive with a load of notoriously poor non-arguments is probably best avoided. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 15:17, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't an imputation of your motive -- it was an attempt to help you to understand how you will be perceived by any third parties to this AfD. You can make use of this observation or you can set it aside. As for types of argument to avoid, I think each reader is free to judge them on their own merits; that an argument has been codified somewhere will sway some and not others. In this regard I hope people will remember WP:IGNORE, especially in connection with controversial subjects around which committed activists are known to collect. A simple catalog of rules will do little to sort out questions in such situations. modify 21:43, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG, per IRWolfie and others above. If it's re-recreated, salt. Miniapolis 16:21, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What about the multiple references discussing the topic (most of them added after "IRWolfie and others above" "voted")? See in the article: references 2. (Deseret News 1990), 4. (Simon 1999), 8. (Los Angeles Times 1990), 10. (New York Times 1992), 11. (Associated Press 1992), 12. (Wired 1998), 13. (Goodstein 2010), Huizenga 1993 (See "Further reading", explaining that the first three conferences are commented in detail in this book, pp. 237–247, 274–285, specially 240, 275–277) and the extensive coverage of the first conference by local Salt Lake City, Utah news stations in 1990 (about 50 minutes of TV coverage, see "External links")? The conferences are clearly notable to me. --Edcolins (talk) 18:23, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Even if they're all "crackpots" (I'm not endorsing that opinion), this still rises to the level of a notable conference of crackpots. - Richfife (talk) 00:38, 25 June 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. --BDD (talk) 20:10, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Last surviving 1800s-born people

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

List fails WP:SYNTH, WP:OR, WP:V and all material is available in other articles such as Oldest people DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 03:26, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As per Derby, the first table is stolen straight from the List of living supercentenarians page and the second table is poorly sourced. CommanderLinx (talk) 03:33, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:Content fork of the previously mentioned articles. I don't think it's worth its own page, as it can easily be seen from the others. Ansh666 03:44, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the others, this is redundant. Hekerui (talk) 13:11, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article is completely relevant to today's situation in which the number of surviving people born in the 1800s is declining. When we reach a point that the last person born in the 1800s has passed, this article will be worthy of deletion. As of June 2013, it is still a completely relevant and valuable article. --82.34.243.21 (talk) 15:38, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not temporary, if these people are notable, then they will carry on being notable after their deaths.Martin451 (talk) 15:55, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a content fork.Martin451 (talk) 15:55, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
keep it is still of interest — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.166.143.229 (talk) 19:15, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Redundant page, ill-named. Royal Mate1 19:26, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.75.218.22 (talk) 02:42, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It is interesting, but the list of living supercentenarians answers the same question. Also, the article is oddly enough, self-deleting.--I am One of Many (talk) 07:19, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This article relevant until these people are dead, which will not be that long. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.165.140.84 (talk) 13:05, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As said above, the information in the first table is stolen straight from an already existing Wikipedia page. CommanderLinx (talk) 00:53, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge I admit there are arguments for deleting this page. The list of living persons comes from the top of the List of living supercentenarians, and there is the page List of oldest people by year of birth. With some work you can figure out who the last person born in the 1700s to die was, and the same will eventually apply for the 1800s, however I don't think there is a chart that orders them (after death) as this page does. This sort of data does interest me, and how do you define interest?Juve2000 (talk) 03:39, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This page only lists living people. It's quite easy to figure out from the other pages mentioned above, where this was copied from. There is nothing to merge, and personal interest is no reason to keep. Ansh666 03:54, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't follow various wiki codes, and to be honest, I could understand had it been about the last born of the 19th century, (which also would have been of little importance) and considering if you search 1800s you come to this page 1800s I just don't see the point as oldest people gives you all the information you need! MattSucci (talk) 10:51, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Contains no unique information, and will soon be redundant anyhow --Jonie148 (talk) 12:51, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Believe this is a redundant and unnecessary article. Rpvt (talk) 02:41, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although, I don't agree with the recent addition of the ones that have died being included at the bottom of the chart. I think once a person dies they should be removed entirely. Zz pot (talk) 02:41, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Using that logic, the list will defeat its own purpose when the last person dies. Again, DELETE. List of living supercentenarians contains the same information, but is self-sustaining as there will likely always be at least one supercentenarian (whether born in the 1800s or not) to list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.75.219.176 (talk) 04:57, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- It hurts nothing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.253.155.86 (talk) 05:48, 18 June 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. Speedied under WP:A9, Non-notable music by artist with no Wikipedia article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:45, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A Thin Line Between Heaven and Here

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

The artist's page has been deleted. Bringing its albums to WP:AfD. Curb Chain (talk) 02:27, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A9. —Mike moral ♪♫ 02:31, 12 June 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. Speedied under WP:A9, Non-notable music by artist with no Wikipedia article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:47, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Renovation

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

The artist's page has been deleted. Bringing its albums to WP:AfD. Curb Chain (talk) 02:27, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A9. —Mike moral ♪♫ 02:31, 12 June 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. Michig (talk) 06:42, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Case

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

Notability in question, minimal sourcing found. Chinchillazilla (talk · contribs) tried to AFD it but only got so far as creating a redlinked transclusion on the log. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:22, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 01:24, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 01:25, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 01:25, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Tried to find something online that would establish notability and failed. There are sources listed. But they are print sources and what they show is not clear at all. It seems that in the case of an actor there would be SOME kind of online source supporting WP:N. The article doesn't offer much to hang notability on either. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:07, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ Delete - I'm struggling to see how a local theatre lead/artistic director meets our inclusion guidelines. There's coverage, like this and this, but it is decidedly local and most of it is written by one or two people at that local paper. There certainly wouldn't be enough to meet WP:CREATIVE, in my view, with only significant roles only in fairly insignificant local productions. I might try and clean it up a bit for the sake of fairness, but I think it will take a very good argument to convince me that the subject is notable. Stalwart111 02:21, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Having tried to clean it up, I'm removing the "weak" part of my !vote. All the ELs were deadlinks and the television appearance claim is questionable, at best, given the supposed production company isn't a production company at all, but rather a company that makes and sells green screens for television shows, not actual television shows. The "theatre" he runs isn't actually a theatre at all - it's a theatre company that puts on productions at the local bar & bistro. Sorry. Stalwart111 02:40, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete even if perfect sourcing could be found somehow, he still wouldn't be notable. Community theater is non-notable pretty much by default, and as Stalwart points out, this isn't even at that level... bar/bistro theater. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:38, 12 June 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. Significant improvements since the start of AfD vitiate the delete votes. -- Y not? 14:55, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of food

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

This just doesn't appear to be an encyclopedic article, to me. For one, it's heavily biased to North American (esp USA) commercial food products, and therefore ignores the rest of the world. If it were to include every food product ever created or invented, it would be a useless sprawling mass. — The Potato Hose 00:36, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 00:40, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 00:41, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Cyclopia ^talk 17:19, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:BIASed and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Ansh666 00:49, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Actually, Speedy delete as creation by obvious sock of blocked user User:Codyfinke (WP:CSD#G5). Ansh666 01:35, 12 June 2013 (UTC)~~[reply]
  - I saw that it had been created by a sock, but didn't bring it up; I figured it was better to have a discussion about the merits of the article rather than invoking that rule. — The Potato Hose 02:00, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ah. In that case, I'm unstriking my original !vote. Are you sure, though? I feel like this article was intended to be disruptive. Ansh666 02:03, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yeah, I'm sure. I know a lot of sockpuppets are deliberately disruptive, but poking through this person's contribs doesn't suggest that to me. I'm not even qualified to be an armchair psychiatrist, but if I were? It looks like someone who is developmentally delayed in some fashion, or some sort of autistic spectrum disorder, who basically Just Does Not Get It. In fact I'd lean more to the latter--enough sophistication to change IPs, make new accounts, etc. But the focus on always using 'Cody' in the name is a clue. So no, I don't think this was intended to be disruptive, I think they thought they were helping. Anyway I'm venturing far afield. Sorry. So that's one reason I think this should be discussed instead of done by fiat. Secondly, discussing (with whatever outcome) means it's transparent and clear. — The Potato Hose 02:52, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Alright, just making sure. Ansh666 03:22, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - per policy, speedy delete, but both delete and keep camps are working hard and giving good arguments. I'll sit this one out from now. Ansh666 17:29, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This would go on forever and is highly American-centric. Also, a hattip to Ansh as I was trying to figure out where I knew CodySoulTrainCruise (talk · contribs) from when I saw their edits, and it's been nagging me for weeks how I know that name; obviously Codyfinke. Nate • (chatter) 01:58, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Glad I cleared it up for ya! Ansh666 02:03, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete As per above. This thing looks to be no more than a half-step removed from a hoax. - Ad Orientem (talk) 02:16, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 02:26, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Complete nonsense. More like a random list of USA-based commercial food products than a genuine list of food. No sources whatsoever. JIP | Talk 02:56, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into History of food, which needs help. The current draft doesn't have a good foundation and so has become a laundry list. But the topic has a lot of potential as substantial sources exist: The Prehistory of Food; The Food Chronology: A Food Lover's Compendium of Events and Anecdotes from Prehistory to the Present; British Food: An Extraordinary Thousand Years of History. Our editing policy is to preserve this imperfect draft for further development. Deletion would instead be discouraging and disruptive. Warden (talk) 08:34, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. epzik8 14:14, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hopelessly goofy article from which nothing can be salvaged without a 100% rewrite. Ignores thousands of years and the entire world besides the US, but even if the scope was limited to 20th-century US it's still crap, ignoring countless major events & people (No Spago? No Julia Child? No microwave oven??? Nothing AT ALL about wine?!?) but plenty of unsourced trivia, such as Diet Coke with lemon & Diet Coke with lime having seperate entries. Even if someone were to clean this up--a huge undertaking, as virtually nothing from the current article could be used--timelines aren't a great way to present information that could be better presented in prose, and would be largely redundant with other, better articles, such as Cuisine of the United States. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:26, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Solomon7968 21:35, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - All the arguments above are about content, not topic, and forget that our deletion policy specifically says that deletion is not cleanup. Content is poor/entries are missing/poorly referenced? Then fix it, or wait for it to be fixed. But a timeline of foods is clearly a notable topic, as books like this show. --Cyclopia^talk 13:26, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I cited WP:INDISCRIMINATE (part of WP:NOT) - which is what this page inherently is. Ansh666 17:58, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:INDISCRIMINATE is very misunderstood. It means that we're not a data dump, so (for example) we're not a lyrics database, nor we have a page listing all known prime numbers. But a timeline of foods is a notable and very meaningful topic, and there are sources about that. That they way the content in the article is bordering on indiscriminate, I agree, but in this case it is matter of content, so we're not supposed to delete but to fix. Don't think about what the article is, think about what it should be.--Cyclopia^talk 19:23, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Then, what do you propose this article "should be"? Ansh666 19:28, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Something like this, I would say. --Cyclopia ^talk 23:26, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Hrm. That would require a complete rewrite (relisting? and not in the AfD sense), eh? Well, I guess someone's gotta do it. Anyways, what would be the criteria? We can't include natural foods like fruits (oranges are in the current list), since those don't have a definite date. In fact, most foods, unlike inventions, don't have a definite date unless they were created in maybe the past 200 years - wouldn't a listing beyond that be rather arbitrary? I can see why such a page would be useful, but can we be sure that it's actually possible to create in an accurate manner? Ansh666 23:37, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with TPH's rationale. This is an indiscriminate list of random factoids that really have no place in Wikipedia. No citations, no major facts, and focuses too much on minor events. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 19:05, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, a matter of content, not of the topic notability. If content is bad, we're supposed to fix, not delete. --Cyclopia ^talk 19:23, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have started refactoring content at Timeline of food. Can people have a look and see if this kind of improvement could change your mind? --Cyclopia^talk 15:24, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Valiant effort, but no. Again, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, plus comments by others and what I have said before. — The Potato Hose 16:42, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please explain how WP:INDISCRIMINATE would apply to an article like the one which is coming up. The first part of the timeline is now basically completely sourced and records notable landmarks from all the world in the history of human food. I'm still keeping the latter original part, but I can excise it if it makes people feel better. --Cyclopia ^talk 17:14, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chop in half and throw the second half away. The first half is a 'timeline of foodstuffs', which seems encyclopaedic enough - though it should probably be converted from list format to text, and merged into History of food. The second half is a 'timeline of brands', which is evidently US-biased, and stands no possibility of ever being complete. If it were complete, it would consist almost entirely of brands that most readers had never heard of... AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:34, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Major cleanup needed I point to History of painting of what this article should approach in terms of organization. The last 2/3rd isn't necessary (the year of introduction of branded food products is questionably indiscriminate). The first 1/3rd ccan be recovered towards what the article should be. --MASEM (t) 19:38, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Removed the second half, as it seems consensual that it makes no sense in the form it was. I point to previous !voters that the article now is completely different from what it was when nominated. --Cyclopia ^talk 19:44, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cyclopia - notable topic, not different from Food history except for the timeline format. The current content is clearly put in context with respect to the topic, so this can't be indiscriminate. Diego (talk) 19:50, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment only. After Cyclopia's good work it appears to be the same/similar content as Timeline of agriculture and food technology. Perhaps a merge/redirect to there would satisfy all parties? --Richhoncho (talk) 19:52, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. I considered that, but the other article seems to be very focused on agriculture. Also food technology is different from food as a whole. --Cyclopia ^talk 19:59, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- On 2009-20-15 the last version worked on by the article creator, User: Codyfinkepatthebunny, was {{prod}}ed -- perfectly reasonable, as, although the topic of the article is itself notable, the article was totally unreferenced. So there was no referenced content worth saving. But since then references have been added. Some people have called the article creator a sockpuppet, which I regard as irrelevant. Even a stopped clock is correct, twice a day. There are lots of {{afd}} started by sockpuppets, known vandals, or innocent newbies whose initial nomination is completely lacking in a policy justification. But we don't close those {{afd}} as speedy keep if a genuine, well informed, trustworthy contributor voices a "delete" because they think they noticed a genuine policy-based justification for deletion. Rather the first policy-based justification for delete becomes the focus for the discussion. I suggest anyone voicing a "delete" here, solely based on allegations the article was started by a sockpuppet, should agree to speedy keeps for any poorly drafted nominations in the future. Geo Swan (talk) 20:52, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Geo Swan: An article should not be deleted if created by a banned user in contravention of the ban unless it is deemed as created with the purpose of being disruptive - basically, although it can be deleted by policy, it's not recommended. I initially assumed (incorrectly) that it was as such, because of my experience with Paul Bedson socks. However, if you read the discussion above, I was corrected, and struck my Speedy Delete !vote. None of the other Delete !votes were based on the article being created by a sockpuppet. Therefore, your long rant is quite irrelevant (and about half of it would have been irrelevant anyways). Ansh666 21:13, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am glad you explicitly withdrew this comment at 21:13 2013-06-16. Re-reading your exchange with Potatohose it looks like the two of you clearly understood one another. But I honestly didn't understand you withdrew the comment. As to whether anyone else voiced that opinion, didn't one of the later respondents write "delete, as above"? Geo Swan (talk) 23:16, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yeah, I can see where it's a bit confusing - I watchlist all the AfDs I contribute to in any way, so I know the order of things. By the time Ad Orientem made his "per above" statement, I had already struck the Speedy Delete, so they were going off of the nomination, my original !vote, and Nate's. Hope this clears things up for you. Thanks, Ansh666 23:32, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Also, striking something is explicitly withdrawing it, at least in my book - I did that at 02:03 on 12 June 2013. Ansh666 23:34, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Cyclopia's substantial rewrite makes this an easy keep. I suggest closing administrator not count any "delete" arguments that predate this rewrite. Geo Swan (talk) 20:59, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both list You shouldn't erase an article while its at AFD by replacing it with a totally different one. [81] The original one listed notable food items by year they were first created. This is something useful. List of all notable brands when they first emerged would be a good list for them, and then national foods like oranges could be on a list like the article currently is. Dream Focus 23:09, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I personally agree that the original listing could have had a purpose, however it was basically unsourced, and consensus was against it. I think the current state reflects much better the concept of a timeline of important events in history of food. One can go in the history of this article and try to rebuild a list of notable brands from the information there -indeed, I'd help you building that too. --Cyclopia ^talk 10:06, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY. The article has been completely revised compared to its state at the time of nomination for deletion (diff page). It is now a well-sourced and formatted article of significant encyclopedic value. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:03, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I fixed some of the date consistency issues. This article needs cleaning, not deleting. There's some good information here. Oh No! It's Faustus37! it is what it is - speak at the tone 10:29, 19 June 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 Before 1900s in comics. (non-admin closure) czar · · 19:10, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1885 in comics

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

I am conflicted on this one. The article appears to be part of a series by year with the same theme. (Disclaimer: I haven't looked at any of the others.) But there is nothing I can even remotely call notable in the article and there are no sources. Is there a broader topic it can be merged into? Ad Orientem (talk) 00:26, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 02:27, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 02:27, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Looks pretty much like the only event that happened in comics before 1900, and even that is hardly notable. JIP | Talk 03:00, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Before 1900s in comics. Not enough content to sustain an individual article. (Same goes for every article in this series up until the 1930s; they all ought to be merged into the relevant "by decade" article, but that's outside the scope of this AfD.) DoctorKubla (talk) 06:25, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I second this. I was unaware of Before 1900s in comics when I created 1885 in comics, and would've put the info there if I had. For what it's worth, the only reason I created the page was to help de-orphan Harold R. Heaton. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:38, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Before 1900s in comics per above sound analysis. Cavarrone 09:12, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. Bondegezou (talk) 09:39, 14 June 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 deleted by Legoktm. (non-admin closure) —Mike moral ♪♫ 00:17, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Writewikiarticle

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

First, the page name is messed up. It is not Noor Medicial Complex. Second, it is a company that does not belong on wikipedia. Ghostboy1997 (talk) 20:26, 11 June 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.worldcat.org/search?q=kw%3AEdwin+Mellen+Press&qt=advanced&dblist=638
^ http://www.matadorrecords.com/mark_eitzel/biography.html
^ NASA. "2013 NARI Awards". NASA. Retrieved 20 June 2013.
^ http://nari.arc.nasa.gov/Wells

[1] ttp://www.worldcat.org/search?q=kw%3AEdwin+Mellen+Press&qt=advanced&dblist=638

[2] ttp://www.matadorrecords.com/mark_eitzel/biography.html

[3] NASA. "2013 NARI Awards". NASA. Retrieved 20 June 2013.

[4] ttp://nari.arc.nasa.gov/Wells

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]