Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 June 3

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log
< 2 June 4 June >

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. LFaraone 01:27, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Swami Ajatananda Puri

edit
Swami Ajatananda Puri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article looks like a fan or promo page. All sources are primary, promotional (youtube) or commercial. Subject does not seem to meet any notability criteria under WP:ANYBIO or WP:AUTHOR. Ad Orientem (talk) 23:39, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 4 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. LFaraone 01:28, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

edit
AfDs for this article:
Datalink Computer Services incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I brought this to AFD a few years ago, based on general lack of notability and WP:NOTNEWS. The prior AFD was closed due to "no consensus." While recognizing it as mere news, the closing admin noted "there is no clear consensus that this news item will not last." Now, three years later, it seems pretty clear that it was, after all, just news. (I realize notability is not temporary; but recognizing that an event is not notable may not be clear up close in time to the event.) TJRC (talk) 23:31, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 4 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 GTK+. LFaraone 01:28, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GTK+ hello world

edit
GTK+ hello world (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested WP:NOTHOWTO PROD. As this is claimed to be essentially a fork of GTK+, the samples should either stay there or be removed altogether. No prejudice to a redirect/merge to another target, but this list is not appropriate since by convention framework-specific samples (GTK+ is a GUI framework) are not allowed there. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 23:23, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge back to GTK+. I agree that as a standalone article this looks like a howto, especially with the copious comments. Probably best to merge it back into the GTK+ article. Of the two versions, the native binding C example is more important than the Vala example. Removing the comments would make the C example less understandable, but would make it more compact and give it less apparent undue weight in the parent article. Alternatively, putting the example at the end of the GTK+ article might improve the flow of the article. Having a small example the GTK API in the article is encyclopedic and useful to readers, so I would recommend against outright deletion. If the consensus goes against inclusion, however, there is still the possibility of transcluding the code into the Wikibook GTK+ By Example. --Mark viking (talk) 00:26, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There is no reason (as far as I can see) for this fork, other than the author wanted to expand it (which took it into HOWTO territory), but something so detailed is beyond the scope of the GTK+ article. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 00:33, 4 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. LFaraone 01:29, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lalitpur newari

edit
Lalitpur newari (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No substantial information, mini article adds to clutter, also the title is wrong Zulufive (talk) 15:54, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fiction. 1st source about Newari, no mention of Lalitpur, 2nd one just says Newari spoken in Lalitpur district, nothing about the language there being a dialect/somewhat diverging variety and 450k figure nowhere to be found in ref given. — Lfdder (talk) 14:05, 31 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) 22:42, 3 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. LFaraone 01:29, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indian non-governmental diasporic awards

edit
Indian non-governmental diasporic awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article appears to be a wholesale piece of WP:OR or an essay, arguing for the validity of various awards given to members of Indian society or the Indian diaspora. Such awards are often touted as signs of notability in biographies of the awardees, and this article seems to serve no purpose other than to bolster these claims of notability, while not actually citing any sources, but rather relying on emotional arguments to make its case. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 22:15, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:38, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is an essay and not an encyclopedia article. Any actual awards can be discussed individually. I don't see the topic of non-governmental bodies awarding things to members of the diaspora as a coherent topic. The article provides no useful sourcing. My own search din't find anything but with such an amorphous subject, it's kind of hard to figure what to search for. -- Whpq (talk) 16:05, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as essay, would need to be recreated entirely to be of encyclopedic use. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:47, 8 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. SarahStierch (talk) 16:57, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fong She Mei

edit
Fong She Mei (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I suspect this is an autobiography, and I can't see that she is particularly notable either. Now if user:Qworty was here, it would be mercilessly edited to remove "unreliable sources", tagged as requiring more sources, and the author personally insulted on the talk page. As it is, I just think it should be quietly deleted. Barney the barney barney (talk) 09:12, 27 May 2013 (UTC) Barney the barney barney (talk) 09:12, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (chinwag) @ 09:16, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (post) @ 09:16, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (warn) @ 09:17, 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, JohnCD (talk) 21:39, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:36, 3 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. LFaraone 01:29, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wesleycan

edit
Wesleycan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:MADEUP. No indications that this neologism has any widespread use. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 21:26, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:35, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article's author has expanded it to discuss a broader topic of Anglicans who have chose a more Wesleyan interpretation of theology, and bases this on a number of blogs as references. This topic might be notable, if better references could be found, or it might not if there are no other references to be found. If kept, the article would need to be renamed (perhaps as Wesleyan Anglican). As it stands, the article is not sufficiently sourced to remain. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 10:53, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Despite the fact that blogs are not even close to being a reliable source, none of them even use the term "Wesleycan." I still think this is a term the creator of the article, whose username is Wesleycan, created and is trying to promote. Furthermore, the article talks more about the person of John Wesley and his intentions and only a little about what it means to be a "Wesleycan." I don't believe that this subject is significant enough and suggest deletion or at least a merging of some of the content into Wesley's page.—Σosthenes12 Talk 18:01, 4 June 2013 (UTC)Sosthenes12[reply]
  • Delete --an unwelcome WP:NEOlogism. Wesleyanism had its roots in Anglicanism, but the fact that some modern Anglicans may be moving in that direction is no reason to coin a hybrid word for it. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:12, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the concept described by this portmonteau is not limited to the breakway Anglicans, but also the Episcopal Church (United States); note that the Cathedral of All Saints, Albany, New York has a stained glass window dedicated to the Wesleys' preaching. If it were to be deleted, I would cite WP:GNG rather than WP:NEO as a reason. Bearian (talk) 18:00, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Firstly, there is no evidence anywhere that anyone actually uses this word, which seems to have been made up by the author of the article, who is apparently trying to use Wikipedia to publicise it. Secondly, the article is not written from a neutral point of view, but attempts to promote an opinion, including telling us what is "important". JamesBWatson (talk) 15:19, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not have coverage in RS. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:50, 8 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) 15:26, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Zoé Kezako

edit
Zoé Kezako (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Television series that reads kinda like a promotional article. Beerest355 Talk 21:20, 3 June 2013 (UTC) Withdrawn by nominator: didn't know it was a translation. Needs cleanup, but fits GNG.[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:34, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:34, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:34, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Doesn't look like a promotional article to me: it looks like a translation from the French Wikipedia: [2]. I've added a couple of cites to TV stations showing the show. Broadcast in over 12 countries, an International Emmy nomination and an award at the Festival du Film de Télévision de Luchon look like plenty of notability. Bondegezou (talk) 14:03, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article needs work, but likely meets GNG. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:51, 8 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. SarahStierch (talk) 17:00, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

100, 101, 102 - The Wave

edit
100, 101, 102 - The Wave (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of notability. Reads like WP:SOAP. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 21:16, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:32, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:32, 3 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. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 11:40, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Michel von Tell

edit
Michel von Tell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unable to find reliable refs about Michel von Tell. 'Bye Bye Lugow was only released last month and there are no reliable refs about it either. Nothing on Im Gespräch mit von Tell except for social media.

Creating editor removed the prod with "Some users think its relevant. On the you tube Channel you see many famouse people in the show, i found a lot reliable refs ans IMDB also. kind regards" Bgwhite (talk) 21:15, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bgwhite (talk) 21:17, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He ist listed in IMDB, he runs a talk show, his movie is viewed nearly 100 000 times in YT in just some days and was in tv, WP:PORNBIO says - Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following. Peter Scholl Latour - one of European most important journalists was in his show and in the movie.

More then enoght and more many other articles got . movie with a lot of views in YT http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ttqpWq937Mc tvshow on you tube with 340 000 views in 6 months http://www.youtube.com/user/ZensurWachter there are also many other chanels with stuff of him imdb http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2941526/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1 http://www.imdb.com/name/nm5694016/?ref_=tt_ov_dr Jimkio12 (talk) 04:20, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All four links cannot be considered as reliable sources per WP:RS. Being listed on IMDB does not automatically establish notability - you must be able to provide independent sources apart from the two websites above. hmssolent\You rang? ship's log 05:04, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
like i sayed Wikipedia:PORNBIO says " Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following." 90 000 views of the movie and 340 000 of the show should be significant. regards Jimkio12 (talk) 05:14, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but please read WP:BASIC - "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." Being significant does not make the subject notable if such claims are not backed by reliable sources dictated under WP:RS. All BLPs are required to have these if they are to have a chance to stay in WP. hmssolent\You rang? ship's log 05:19, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Its given - there are many diferent publishers, there are many independent and i say it again https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:PORNBIO#Entertainers . " Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following." 90 000 views of the movie and 340 000 of the show should be significant. over a half million indipendet sources. by the way there is an amount of very high class guests in the show. another point witch is in the entertainer criteria" Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions". talked in his show to a

lot of outstanding unique people about profific topics. like i sayed. for me rel is absolutly given. the only point you have got is - i dont accept yt and imdb at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimkio12 (talk • contribs) 05:54, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Over half a milion" - I can see roughly less than 42 hits on Google, none of them being actually reliable. If there are indeed several independent sources that I or Bgwhite may have missed, please mention them here. Again, much of the claims are unreferenced. hmssolent\You rang? ship's log 06:44, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

you will find a bit more if you looking for "tell" or "von tell". mainly they use short. and it dosent change something. it is in a very small country and got 1 mio views if you see all diffrent videos on all diffrent channels in yt (diffrent sources). he s on tv and radio. and here are some sources i found in 5 min. sure you eaven are able to find more. but finaly - just the fact he got a huge fan base should be enough acording to PORNBIO. i understand not everything is relevant but to be hypercritic is also not the way. regards 

http://www.wissensmanufaktur.net/interviews  -    http://www.lotran.de/?p=270   -  http://www.formelody.com/XId5uluqh1Nvv -   http://unzensiertinformiert.de/2013/03/christoph-horstel-im-gesprach-mit-michel-von-tell-wahl-2013-nahost-chavez-iran-syrien/  -  www.meed.tv/qMk4JWJ86zqQK‎ -

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm5694016/ --- http://terraherz.at/2013/05/13/peter-scholl-latour-im-gespraech-mit-michel-von-tell-2013/ --- http://www.qaaq.at/wahrheit/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2322:peter-scholl-latour-im-gespraech-mit-michel-von-tell-2013-&catid=53:video-news-mix-alternative-medien&Itemid=55 -- http://www.eurobuch.com/buch/isbn/9783850331111.html -- http://zomebo.com/LaTour --- http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/aufstand-gegen-erdogan-22-jaehriger-demonstrant-offenbar-erschossen-a-903590.html -- http://video.dainutekstai.lt/vontell.html -- http://www.veengle.com/s/VIETCONG/16.html --- http://mp3ale.com/la-tour-mp3-download.html -- http://spiegel.de/michelvontell -- www.ustream.tv/channel/im-gespräch-mit-michel-von-tell‎ --freemp3q.org/mp3-download-michel-tell.html‎ --- www.omdb.org/movie/73563 159.253.145.150 (talk) 07:29, 4 June 2013 (UTC) ::::You shouldn't call someone a hypercritic - that is considered a personal attack under WP:NPA. With regards to the sources above, the Eurobuch and Spiegel links are usable, but the QAAQ links and anything other than the two sources above do not satisfy WP:RS, although I may consider articles such as Wissensmanufaktur. Until I see a few more sources, I'm going to stay Neutral. Still, I would like to see some sources to verify the fan base claims. hmssolent\You rang? ship's log 16:07, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Back to Delete. hmssolent\You rang? ship's log 00:41, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note I've put the TV show up for AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Im Gespräch mit. Bgwhite (talk) 05:26, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep brings up enough coverage to satisfy WP:GNG

Capconio (talk) 20:37, 4 June 2013 (UTC)— Capconio (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment - The two editors above have made little or no contributions outside of this AfD nomination - I can smell socks from here. hmssolent\You rang? ship's log 00:24, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I do not know if it is appropriate to accuse other contributors of being sockpuppets solely because they have just now chosen to register as per WP:NPA. My main concern is the quality of the sources provided above. I was under the impression that the links to IMDB were not credible sources of notability in and of themselves and not valid WP sources. Is there anyway to get someone who is good at translating to work on the other links (spiegel, etc?) to see if they are valid?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrPhen (talk • contribs) 03:07, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Jimkio12. Based on their recent interactions, chances of sockpuppetry are quite high. hmssolent\You rang? ship's log 03:43, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just to note something to DrPhen, on Wikipedia, it's kind of suspicious when multiple accounts with the same writing style and other characteristics show up in the middle of an AFD debate without any other edits. It's way too close to be coincidental. This has happened a lot of times. Thekillerpenguin (talk)
That's a very good point. I had not realised that these were also single-purpose accounts. It is very suspicious of them to do such a thing here, and I am now sceptical of any validity towards this article if its creators are willing to resort to abuse of process and subterfuge rather than manufacturing valid sources to establish notability. DrPhen (talk) 03:16, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
06:40,

5 June 2013 (UTC)

Another new user account, with a single edit, the one on this AfD. Thomas.W (talk) 16:24, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And User:Oliveru1980, who is a new user yet found his way to WP:ANI for his very first edit, thus showing that he has been here before under another name, not only added his vote to this AfD but also deleted my comment above about another new user. SO I would say that there's a clear case of sock and/or meat puppetry here. Thomas.W (talk) 18:11, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Seconded. Seems like someone around here (probably the creator) is quite the prolific sockmaster, although I'm not 100% sure. Thekillerpenguin (talk) 05:49, 10 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. LFaraone 01:32, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Functional vegetology

edit
Functional vegetology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This appears to be a neologism and original research, as after searches including the Cyrillic version I do not find that the term is used or referred to anywhere except in Prof. Makats' writings and his journal Vegetologia. The book cited is not in Worldcat or Google Books, and the term "Functional vegetology" does not appear in Google Scholar. The article author says on the talk page "There are no sources on "functional vegetology" so far and that is why this article is to inform global comunity about new trends in practical medicine", but Wikipedia is not here to announce new discoveries: the Wikipedia:No original research policy says: "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article about it. If you discover something new, Wikipedia is not the place to announce such a discovery." It is too soon for an article until this topic has been discussed in independent reliable sources. JohnCD (talk) 20:58, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. JohnCD (talk) 21:03, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't think the pdf is MEDRS, since there is no list of references, and also since it may be self published material. Not sure about the other 2 ISBN sources. Can't access them. No PUBMED hits for "Functional vegetology"... Lesion (talk) 21:10, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'm able to pull up the first book used as a ref in Google Books. No mention of functional vegeotlogy int here that I could find. Scholar search results indicate little notice has been taken of this. -- Whpq (talk) 16:10, 5 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. LFaraone 01:32, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Ability Group

edit
The Ability Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced for more than 4 years. Fails WP:CORP. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 20:42, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:25, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:25, 3 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. LFaraone 01:33, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Folkard

edit
Folkard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No notability given, and notability and COI tags present for almost 2 years. Seems to be a page created by the font's creator. UnrepentantTaco (talk) 20:26, 3 June 2013 (UTC) [Edit reverted as per WP:BE and [3].  Unscintillating (talk) 03:17, 24 June 2013 (UTC)][reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:25, 3 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. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 00:52, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Trial of Gotovina et al

edit
Trial of Gotovina et al (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is unnecessary. There is only one other article that describes a specific case at this tribunal (prosecutor v Mladic). This shows inconsistency. Either create articles for all cases, or delete them all. I should inform the community that at none of the other international courts or tribunals are there articles such as this that describe one case. The Historian (talk) 20:02, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:22, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:22, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:23, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:23, 3 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 Illini Media. LFaraone 01:33, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Hub Weekly

edit
The Hub Weekly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This publication only existed for about 2 years, no apparent coverage in any other source and was apparently just a free weekly paper with unclear circulation. There is no apparent notability. Even the webpage that once housed the paper is gone. UnrepentantTaco (talk) 20:01, 3 June 2013 (UTC) [Edit reverted as per WP:BE and [4].  Unscintillating (talk) 03:19, 24 June 2013 (UTC)][reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:18, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:18, 3 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. LFaraone 01:34, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aama Bombo

edit
Aama Bombo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable, fringe person, using all unreliable and self published sources.

See also Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/International_Council_of_13_Indigenous_Grandmothers

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Julieta_Casimiro Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Flordemayo Gaijin42 (talk) 19:28, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:13, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Drivel from beginning to end. My favourite line "It transpired that, even though her father was against women becoming involved in shamanism during his life, in death he had chosen to work through his daughter - due to not being able to find anyone worthy enough to receive his spirit." Paul B (talk) 12:02, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:13, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Lack of signficant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. None of the sources used even come close to meeting our requirements, and my own Google searches turned up nothing even faintly promising. Article is a turmoiled mish-mash of pseudoscientific blither and puffery. Nothing worth salvaging or merging.
  • Merge to International Council of 13 Indigenous Grandmothers; fringe is fringe, but it is the only place where the subject could be discussed in appropriate detail in accordance with our policies. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:08, 8 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. LFaraone 01:35, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Lollar

edit
AfDs for this article:
Charles Lollar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable candidate for Congress. 90% of the article is entirely unsourced. The only sourced sections say "he ran for Congress and lost" and "he has been mentioned by someone as a possible candidate for Governor". The references listed do not provide significant coverage from 3rd party sources. Half of the references provided only mention him in passing, to say "he lost a race for Congress". The others are broken links, his personal website and youtube videos of speeches by other people. Fails WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN. Tiller54 (talk) 19:18, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:23, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:23, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:23, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, the context for the BET article is his role as a delegate to the 2012 Republican National Convention, but otherwise you're right. As far as WP:BLP1E is concerned though, I gather there's a precedent to apply it to unsuccessful electoral candidates but I think it's usually wrong-headed since all three conditions must be met, and the second and third rarely are. Elections to the U.S. House of Representatives are significant events and the role of a major-party nominee (and some minor party/independent candidates, and some unsuccessful primary candidates) is substantial. I also don't see how people who run for elected office can be considered low-profile individuals; and in this case he's clearly received coverage in the context of other events (such as ongoing speculation as to his plans for the 2014 elections; note that BLP1E's first condition doesn't require "significant coverage", only "coverage"). – Arms & Hearts (talk) 16:31, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Simply being a nominee for the House isn't of itself particularly notable, as WP:POLITICIAN states. In Lollar's case there's literally nothing else to say about him: all the sections on his early life and previous career are completely unsourced. Being a nominee for the House doesn't necessarily make someone notable. Even being a nominee for statewide office doesn't establish notability. For example, the Republican nominee for the Senate from Maryland in 2012, Daniel Bongino, doesn't have his own article, and he was also speculated about running for Governor in 2014. There's nothing to say about Lollar that can't, like Bongino, be summed up in 1 line on the gubernatorial election page: he unsuccessfully ran for Congress in 2010, someone said he might run for Governor in 2014. Tiller54 (talk) 23:29, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Something of a straw man: I've never argued that being a nominee for the House is a cause for notability. My argument is that he meets WP:GNG (see coverage linked above), and in this case that isn't outweighed by WP:BLP1E (for reasons outlined above). For what it's worth I agree that the article's in terrible shape, if I get the time today and can be bothered I'll try to do some work on it. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 09:54, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well you said "I also don't see how people who run for elected office can be considered low-profile individuals" and I was just pointing out what WP:POLITICIAN says. There are countless failed Congressional candidates who are then speculated about running for some other office and there's nothing in Lollar's article that makes him more notable than the rest. The coverage of his congressional campaign basically amounts to "he ran, he lost", which doesn't establish notability, per WP:POLITICIAN. Tiller54 (talk) 11:31, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Apparently working his constituents, Lollar was recently featured in Business Queen Anne's, a self-styled "A Coalition for Economic Development and Responsible Government." He was featured in their APRIL 2013 on-line news letter here - http://businessqueenannes.com/news-pdf/news-apr-2013.htm
Update on "The only sourced sections say "he ran for Congress and lost" and "he has been mentioned by someone as a possible candidate for Governor"." The above entry on the April 2013 sourced on-line "Business Queen Anne's" invited speaking engagement demonstrates that this earlier statement is not correct and will be further negated as the 2014 Maryland congressional race heats up. MY opinion - Wikipedia Tiller54 who doesn't have any info is a political operative from the democratic side attempting to remove this article as a pre-election season political move. This editor has already removed most every positive text on Lollar already. NO surprise, here. I've seen this time and time again. THIS long-time, wikipedia editior, (SIMONATL) does NOT work nor is connected with Lollar or his election efforts in any way. I just think he's a significant person for a wikipedia article, just as were several other individuals wrote 1st time wikipedia articles for in the past. Several were unsuccessfully challenged by people with a clear political bias. I'm a political independent, myself. User:SimonATL (talk) 10:00, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
More evidence that this is a political "hit" on Lollar. Tiller54 has removed any reference to the clearly documented fact that Lollar served in the Armed Forces of the United States, in particular, that he was a US Marine, and an officer in the US Marine Corps. What a sad pathetic attempt to REMOVE anything positive about Lollar. Can YOU tell me why Lollar's service in the US Marine Corps as an office was removed? SimonATL (talk) 00:02, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Probably because it was unsourced. See WP:V and WP:AGF. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 12:55, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The unsourced claims were removed because they were... unsourced.
  • That reference you just posted, from "Business Queen Anne's" is broken. Just like half the sources on the article were (not that it's even a WP:RS in the first place).
  • I am not "a political operative from the democratic side" nor is this "a political "hit" on Lollar". Not only am I not a "Democratic political operative", I'm not even American. Criticising my removal of unsourced content by attacking me is not on. You claim to be a "long-time, wikipedia editior". Have you never even heard of WP:NPA and WP:AGF? Tiller54 (talk) 16:59, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Tiller54. Sorry to have offended you, but, unfortunately, YES, I HAVE dealt with political operatives. I'm only interested in an objective article on Lollar. I think he DOES merit "coverage" beyond a one-liner. I'll update the article with sources in-line with Wikipedia policy. And yes - I SHOULD "assume good faith" but I've sure seen its opposite on wikipedia, too. Thanks for your understanding. SimonATL 15:09, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
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. Some more intensive research is needed, but, he's been featured in journals, some more interesting music websites and the Guardian. SarahStierch (talk) 17:02, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Haynes

edit
Tony Haynes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Advert for "acrostic poet". Orange Mike | Talk 18:10, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (shout) @ 18:53, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (articulate) @ 18:54, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (converse) @ 18:54, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 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, WikiPuppies bark dig 18:26, 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, LFaraone 01:36, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete I suspect there is notability out there, but I am not seeing it in RS acceptable sources. This article may just need some deep source searching to make it a "keep." -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:36, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep; nominator has withdrawn nomination and there are no outstanding delete !votes. Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBriTalk 21:59, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jejeebhoy baronets

edit
Jejeebhoy baronets (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No reliable third party source can be found. No scope for improvement. Benedictdilton (talk) 18:02, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 3 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 keep; nominator has withdrawn nomination and there are no outstanding delete !votes. Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBriTalk 22:02, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Liberal Party

edit
Indian Liberal Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No reliable third party source can be found. No scope for improvement. Benedictdilton (talk) 18:01, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Despite the assertion above, Google Books turns up several references, one of which I have added to the article. Apart from that it shows evidence of a 1987 book entitled "Political activity of the Liberal Party in India, 1919-1937", and even a quiz book in which they are one of the answer options. It is also worth checking the various Wikilinks to prominent menbers of this party. AllyD (talk) 19:00, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is one of many India-related AFDs posted by the same nominator within a few minutes, all with the exact same rationale. The other three that I looked at, I was able to immediately find sources. I have left a message on the nominator's talk page. I'm expecting these should all just be speedy closed. postdlf (talk) 19:04, 3 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 keep; nominator has withdrawn nomination and there are no outstanding delete !votes. Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBriTalk 22:03, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Calcutta time

edit
Calcutta time (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No reliable third party source can be found. No scope for improvement. Benedictdilton (talk) 17:57, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Kindly remove this page from this list and close this AFD Benedictdilton (talk) 21:20, 3 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. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 00:54, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald E. Manahan

edit
Ronald E. Manahan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced and no sources of any sort let alone secondary. No evidence of any significant notability. Fails WP:BLP  Velella  Velella Talk   17:14, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 3 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. LFaraone 01:37, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Park City Little League

edit
Park City Little League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. All Google hits are run of the mill, such as MapQuest directions, Yelp! reviews, eteamz mentions, or the site itself. Not coverage exists of this league, let alone sufficient third-party coverage. It's just another Little League organization with no remarkable characteristics. Jrcla2 (talk) 17:09, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 3 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. I give an embracing thank you to Mike Agricola for finding those reviews and stuff. Therefore, I am satisfied by the sources found. (non-admin closure) — ΛΧΣ21 03:25, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Advanced Destroyer Simulator

edit
Advanced Destroyer Simulator (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I have failed to find sources to back up notability of this title. — ΛΧΣ21 16:30, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. video games from this era of DOS programming almost all have notability, simply due to their nature of being part of the early stages of computer video games themselves.
furthermore, this game in particular is a unique item in its genre. there are very few ship simulations for that era of video games, or indeed for video games in general. --Sm8900 (talk) 13:49, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not meant to badger, but I need a source to believe what you are saying thet all DOS games are inherently notable. Cheers. — ΛΧΣ21 15:19, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm by nature sympathetic to this type of article, but it's probably off target to call a game released in 1990 part of the "early stages of computer video games," given that that's already 8 years after even the launch of the Commodore 64, which itself was merely one of the first massively successful computers that had a thriving gaming community. That said, I agree with the spirit of your comment, so I'd love to see some kind of sourcing. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 20:44, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I cannot find significant coverage in independent reliable sources. There is no automatic notability for ciomputer games from the DOS era. Although coverage for this 1990 game may exist in offline sources, there's usualyl at least some hints of notability. All I can find is that this game exists. -- Whpq (talk) 16:58, 5 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. LFaraone 01:37, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Saya Lynx

edit
Saya Lynx (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is almost certainly a hoax article. A single account is responsible for creating it and adding references to it in various movie articles. The only source referenced is an IMDb entry, though I suspect that's falsified as well. (Recent Wikipedia hoaxer Sainath Dukkipati was also able to produce hoax IMDb entries for himself by referencing Wikipedia articles and blogs which he had contributed to.) I can't find any reliable sources verifying that "Saya Lynx" appears or will appear in any of the films listed in this article. The "trailers" it links to are clearly amateur footage of the subject intercut with professional film clips. Psychonaut (talk) 16:13, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 3 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) 17:03, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regine Sixt

edit
Regine Sixt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Businesswoman (a VP, not a CEO) who fails notability criteria. Biker Biker (talk) 15:54, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 3 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. SarahStierch (talk) 17:04, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tsaxkadzor

edit
Tsaxkadzor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An IP has been persistently rewriting this article (supposedly about a place in Azerbaijan) to be about Tsaghkadzor, a place in Armenia about which we already have an article. That's not an AfD matter, but aside from the entry from the GEOnet Names Server—known to be a sometimes unreliable source—that the article includes as a reference, I'm unable to find any independent corroboration of this place's existence. In a thread at ANI, several editors have doubted the existence of the "village", so it seems best to bring it here as potentially failing WP:V. There's Google evidence that "Tsaxkadzor" is also used as a spelling for the Armenian town, so simply redirecting the article to Tsaghkadzor is a possibility; but I'm reluctant to do that without obtaining a consensus that this article should not stay. Deor (talk) 15:28, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete At bare minimum we have to have V. It does not seem to be that. Its in a city of Susa according to Google and places like the Weather 24.net [8].
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) 17:05, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gabrielle Bernstein

edit
Gabrielle Bernstein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completing nomination (per WP:AGF) on behalf of Usernamexxx, whose rationale was posted on the article's talk page and is included verbatim below. On the merits, I make no recommendation - but note that she is frequently credited as a "Bestselling author", which might indicate some notability. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:23, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This page seems to be a promotional page for a possible violation due to the 'advertisement' quality of it. There does not seem to be a credible reason for the page to exist as there are 'notable' qualities that seem to be missing when comparing it to the other quality biographical Wiki articles on other authors, and or 'teachers'. Based upon Wikipedia standards this page is nominated for automatic deletion due to the lack of credible notability and it's appearance as an advertisement for Mrs. Bernstein. This concern is verified by the 'external' link to a book or a promotional video that has been posted on the top right of the page. The page needs to be edited to meet the quality criteria of other biographical Wikipedia articles in such a way that it does not seem just like an ad in a newspaper - the way that it appears right now. Usernamexxx (talk) 06:30, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This line from a review of one of her books struck me the most: "Bernstein's talent for marketing herself through media coverage, speaking engagements, and her mentoring Web site is apparent in this volume." However, the New York Times piece linked in the article, along with reviews of her books, such as from Publisher's Weekly [9] and Kirkus Reviews [10] adds up to notability. 24.151.116.25 (talk) 16:04, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 3 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 for deletion, but plenty of consensus for a merge or redirect if anyone wants to try that. Shii (tock) 07:04, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Nakayama

edit
Jimmy Nakayama (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I hate nominating articles like this one because I feel his sacrifice holds more value than some one-hit wonder rapper, but the subject fails WP:SOLDIER. The one source used in the article focuses as much on his family and their reaction to the movie than on the subject himself, enough so that I'm not sure it passes WP:GNG. At that point, the article looks more like a memorial than coverage. The subject was portrayed in a movie, but his character was minor and I don't think we can consider it significant. Even the article author calls it a "mention" in the book We Were Soliders. A fine American no doubt and I won't be heartbroken if it gets kept, but I felt like I had to be fair in nominating it. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:04, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I wouldn't oppose a redirect. Not sure merge would work since he wasn't a real factor in the battle. The current article doesn't even mention him and he isn't much more notable than any other soldier that died there. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:38, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, I wouldn't oppose a redirect. The "mentions" you keep citing are exactly that, mentions, which we know does nothing to satisfy the requirement for significant coverage. Whether the coverage in the small paper from Billings is actually about him or is about his family could be debated I guess. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:24, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The Gazette is the main paper in Billings if that makes any difference. I'd be happy with a redirect here, although I still feel that he's not notable in and of himself. Intothatdarkness 17:37, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Billings is the largest city in Montana (over 100k population), so maybe not globally it is not a major city, but regionally it's very important, as so is the paper regionally.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:02, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You'll notice that I originally voted to delete and would be happy with either that or a redirect. Notability can be defined by regional considerations, and if the Gazette is the largest paper in a particular region that gives it slightly more weight than if it were the Dogpatch Sun-Times, the smallest of three papers circulating in a town with a population of 500. His being mentioned in the Gazette doesn't make him more notable to me, but it's worth putting the paper's context out there for others who might weigh those things differently. Intothatdarkness 21:14, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Seems to pass GNG only because of the scene depicted in the movie. The detailed discussion as to the We Were Soldiers and the reality can be seen here.[11] with tiny mentions in other sources like this. [12] Some others are in Highbeam. [13] Though if you want to cover the history properly, I think the records would need to be dug up at the archives. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:11, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per LeftCoast and ChrisGualtieri. While he doesn't pass WP:SOLDIER, he easily passes WP:GNG. I also think the article has been fixed up enough for WP:HEY. In the alternative, a merge a la Roderick_Wetherill#Roderick_Wetherill.2C_Jr. would work, too. Bearian (talk) 16:31, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Battle of Ia Drang per WP:ONEEVENT. There only appears to be one article specifically about him, with the other citations being passing mentions, so I don't see how he passes WP:GNG. Bondegezou (talk) 09:44, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete and do not merge. One death in a way. The guideline is NOT MEMORIAL. If he were central to either the battle or the movie there would be a case for keeping or merging, but that's not the situation. It's just one incident, that happened to be mentioned in sources along with many others. going by the GNG, the GNG requires substantial, not incidental coverage. Trying to call this substantial coverage is stretching it very far. Coverage of the death of someone in a local paper is not discriminating coverage, and avoiding this is the very purpose of NOT MEMORIAL. DGG ( talk ) 05:36, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a borderline case; while I usually don't think only two RS (the book and the Billings Gazette) are sufficient for notability, the nom summed it up well: "I feel his sacrifice holds more value than some one-hit wonder rapper...". If not kept, redirect to Battle of Ia Drang. Miniapolis 15:59, 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. SarahStierch (talk) 17:07, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Smith (author)

edit
Thomas Smith (author) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Considering the large number of edits, the author has been very parsimonious with information about this guy. Massive set of external links but which of them are actually to reliable sources? (William, considering he is into leather, etc. could you not find a more appropriate photo - such as on this page.) — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:26, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • The entry is properly supported by reliable sources. The sources include regular publications (Lavendar magazine and The Leather Journal) and the Leatherati an independent widely read news source. The objection by RHaworth seems to be based on his personal bias as stated in his comment which is insulting to this subculture and gay community. This "discussion" or witchhunt by the originator has no place and the categories for which this article is written has alrady been made part of Wikipedia. If this article is deleted then every articile in these categories run the risk to similar biased treatment. Then who is to say that rogue editors will not censor everything on Wikipedia to meet their own individual wants. This article should not be subjected to this discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WilliamTaylorSimpson (talk • contribs) 14:19, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • None of the sources are really usable, though. They show that the author exists, but existing isn't notability. If you really want I can give you a detailed explanation, but the long and short is that they aren't usable. Just because a website is read often or is popular doesn't mean that it can be used as a reliable source. Sources have to go through a pretty strict process before they're considered to be trustworthy enough to count as a reliable source. And when I say strict, I mean strict. I've had sources that I thought were pretty reliable end up getting removed because they didn't pass these guidelines. When it comes to the stuff that covers any niche subject matter, that gets harder to find. It's frustrating, but then it's not Wikipedia's job to make up for the lack of coverage in sources that it considers to be reliable. It also doesn't mean that it's a witch hunt, or that this is happening because anyone is against anything in the article. Wikipedia isn't censored. I apologize if you were offended by RHaworth's statement about the photos. While I'm not as close with him as I am with other editors, I can say that I'm familiar enough with him to where I believe that he didn't mean it as an insult or as a barb against the BDSM community. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:39, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Whew. That's a prime example of WP:OVERCITE if I've ever seen one. Long story short, none of the sources are usable as far as showing notability goes. The best one out of the bunch is one where he's quoted but isn't the focus of the article itself. As far as the other sources go, they're either primary sources, routine notifications that he'd be attending or judging somewhere, posts on sites that Wikipedia wouldn't consider reliable, or notifications that he's won awards or held positions that aren't really the type that Wikipedia would consider of any big note. Most awards or positions aren't, when you get down to it. I like to say that about 5% of all awards ever given to anyone, anywhere are important enough to give notability and of that group, less than 1% are important enough to where they give absolute notability. None of these awards/positions fit into either category. Now I understand that despite the whole "Fifty Shades" phenomenon, BDSM as a whole is still relatively uncovered as far as mainstream stuff goes. However, that doesn't mean that it is exempt from having to find reliable sources. This guy just isn't notable enough to merit an entry here. There's enough to show that he could be a reliable source, but being a reliable source and passing notability guidelines aren't the same thing and he's not a big enough of a figure to be considered notable on that end either. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:28, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IN RESPONSE: The subject of this article has more supporting documentation and recognition by award, publication, and position (titles) than other persons in the BDSM Activists and BDSM Authors categories -- without exception. So should non-mainstream sources and support be excluded, and then all in these categories summarily removed from REMOVED from Wikipedia. This discussion itself can be held about each of the articles in these categories. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WilliamTaylorSimpson (talk • contribs) 14:53, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: This article being subjected to this discussion is inconsistent with the manner other similar articles have been treated in Wikipedia. See V M Johnson, Guy Baldwin, Desmond Ravenstone, Hardy Haberman, Susan Wright, Janet Hardy and other articles and **NONE** have been subjected to such discussions. The bias for this article is clear from the first comment posted by the originator of this witch hunt. I trust that there will be serious and meaningful thought to the meaning of the impetus for this discussion by the originator and the potential harmful, long term effect on Wikipedia from such overt discrimination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WilliamTaylorSimpson (talk • contribs) 15:22, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • The amount of documentation in the article means nothing if the sources aren't considered to be reliable. You can have over a hundred links to places, but if none of them are considered to be what Wikipedia counts as a reliable source then no amount of them will show notability. The existence of other BDSM persons with articles doesn't really have any bearing on this AfD either. Just because another article exists doesn't mean that this should be kept or that this article's deletion means that they should be deleted as well. It could be that those articles have sources that are considered to be reliable per Wikipedia's guidelines and show enough notability to be kept, or it could be that they just haven't been noticed and brought to AfD yet. (And might I add that if you're trying to keep these articles on Wikipedia, bringing them to people's attentions and saying that they have sourcing flaws isn't the way to go about it.) Their existence has no bearing on this particular deletion discussion and just because this article has been nominated doesn't mean that RHaworth is discriminating against anyone. If you honestly and truthfully think that you or the subject of the article are being discriminated against, you can always bring your case up at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:00, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WilliamTaylorSimpson (talk • contribs) 16:13, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request to have the discussion at the stated Administrators Forum has been made. The article Thomas Smith (author) has been renamed twice, subjected to a discussion for deletion where the originator clearly states a disparaging comment. The rogue nature and continuance of actions by a group of geographically connected users on this cite is something that may have long term serious consequences of Wikipedia. The BDSM author, BDSM activists, and Gay Writers categories where this article is located appears to have been subjected to dissimilar treatment.

SEE HISTORY FOR ARTICLE AND DISCUSSION ON DELETION. (Note the William ... leather and picture comment for supporting information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WilliamTaylorSimpson (talk • contribs) 16:43, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete As a disclaimer, I was drawn to this discussion because it was brought up at ANI and the BLP noticeboard. After reviewing the sources on the page I agree that none are sufficient to establish notability, either they are not in reliable sources or are passing mentions. His name being so common it is tough to do an independent search but I tried combining the name with both leather and BDSM and could not find any sources that would confer notability. J04n(talk page) 16:56, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RESPONSE: There are more than reliable, independent references. Perhaps they are not mainstream, but no less reliable. Please review the WIKIPEDIA standards for reliable sources and notability. Some the above comments are direct contradiction of the established standards. WilliamTaylorSimpson (talk) 17:54, 3 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by WilliamTaylorSimpson (talk • contribs) 17:14, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There are, at the moment, 36 references. Quite a few of them confirm facts as asserted in the text - for example, we have 3 sources that confirm that Mr. Smith was named Mr. Kentucky Leather 1997. Good as far as it goes, but confirming facts does not show notability - it just confirms facts. You are correct that non-mainstream sources can be considered reliable, but consider also that someone noted only by non-mainstream sources is not necessarily notable by Wikipedia's definition. We see a similar issue where someone is notable in local news for something, but that that coverage does not extend into broader recognition of that individual. We have articles created daily that document the exploits of high school athletes, with the only coverage being the school's website or the local news. That isn't sufficient. The facts of the article are not necessarily in dispute - there is little question that Mr. Smith received these awards, wrote these books, etc. The question is whether sufficient sources exist to show that those awards or those books were noted in a broad enough sense to satisfy our requirements. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 17:59, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article is supported and meets the following: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published[3] secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,[4] and independent of the subject.[5]" The Lavendar magazine articles, the Leather Journal publication articles, the Leather Archives & Museum Timeline entries, and the Weekly magazine each meet this test. Additionally, the aggregate of the subjects accomplisments (awards, titles, books) demonstrate acceptance of the notability standard. The references perhaps are from non-mainstream sources and the categories for inclusion are non-mainstream. Each reference is included to support meeting the established standards. Together - the titles, awards and books and supporting references - meet the requirements. I hope that responders review the individual references. Also, I trust that any remarks about the subculture represented are not made in the manner in which this deletion discussion was introduced.WilliamTaylorSimpson (talk) 19:32, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To get to the crux of this dispute, footnote [5] to the above notability guideline states that "The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself have actually considered the subject notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it". For the benefit of those of us who have yet to wade through the multiple references, could you please indicate one or two of the references which constitute "published non-trivial works that focus upon" Thomas Smith. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:45, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As stated above, References which meet the standard of independent and reliable that focus on subject are not limited to the following but include, Reference numbers 14, 15, 20, 22, and 30. WilliamTaylorSimpson (talk) 19:55, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A little friendly advice: you don't need to answer every comment made by other users. You have made your points, so unless someone raises something new, that should be enough.--ukexpat (talk) 20:16, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, we did ask him for refs that were non-trivial works, etc etc. But yes, repeating the same statement over and over is not helpful.
As to the comment, Ref 14 appears to be a Blog - quite a good one, on the face of it, but a blog nonetheless. Blogs are not reliable sources under our policy. Ref 15 comes from The Word, a regional LGBT newspaper - can't judge reliability, as I can't read the article. But it's better. Ref 20 is an interview from The Leather Journal, a publication of the "BDSM/Fetish/Leather community", according to its website (as is Ref 30). Ref 22 is from Lavender Magazine, a local LGBT magazine serving Minnesota. In total, it all has the feel of local coverage, both geographically and within the Leather community. The fact that we have 9 sources confirming that Mr. Smith was named Mr. International Rubber 1999 is also problematic, as it gives the appearance of some notability (Oi, look at all the sources) without actually supporting the claim of notability with sources from outside the Leather community. It is a concern, and a valid one, that has been raised elsewhere on this page. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 22:07, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable, and despite an apparent mountain of supposed citations, little to nothing in the way of true substantial coverage in what would be reliable sources for our purposes. For what it's worth, when a single editor fights tooth and nail to get an article kept (including a spurious complaint at ANI), is virtually always a strong sign that there's a spam/confict-of-interest issue. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:58, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: Article references have been revised by making deletions based on the above comments. WilliamTaylorSimpson (talk) 17:42, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: I note from the above discussion that the article previously had many more sources, I assume that the ones remaining in the current version represent the best of what was available. None of the eight sources presented meet the requirements listed at WP:GNG - reliable, intellectually independent secondary sources that discuss the subject in depth. VQuakr (talk) 03:58, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The version I was looking at was This one. You're correct, it has been substantially pared down since. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 12:34, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The remaining article references are from publications that I thought were considered independent and reliable. IntlWriter

  • Of the 3 remaining sources, the first is a local weekly that only briefly mentions Smith once at the very end and doesn't even support the sentence it's footnoted to. The second I can't access but it also looks local in scope. The third is absolutely positively NOT a reliable source. I actually appreciate that you've tried to improve the article, but cut down to the bare bones it's all the more obvious that there's simply nothing notable or verifiable that can be said about him. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:23, 10 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. SarahStierch (talk) 15:27, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Manashakti

edit
Manashakti (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The Manashakti Research Centre is a non-notable institution with no significant coverage in mainstream reliable sources Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 13:18, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 3 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. SarahStierch (talk) 15:27, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Prasoon Kumar

edit
Prasoon Kumar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Only claim to notability is a short blurb in the Times of India noting his award of the Bharat Jyoti award by the India International Friendship Society. The validity of this award in terms of conferring notability is questionable, as the organization does not publish any information on its selection criteria, nor does it publish lists of awardees. Awardees or their employers generally release their own press releases announcing the awards. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:53, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The information regarding criteria of organisation that you have requested is at http://www.iifsind.org/

Notability is establised in the annual book "Best Citizen of India" by International Publishing House, which carries a one page article on this person on page 88 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adyakumar (talk • contribs) 14:26, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Actually, the IIFS does not publish their selection criteria at their website. They only discuss in broad terms their goals and aims. Award of the "Best Citizen of India" by the International Publishing House is an equally questionable award. Google searches indicate that the "Best Citizen of India" award is granted variously by "International Publishing House", "Indian Publishing House" or "Best Citizen Publishing House" (based on various self-published press releases), but no search for any of these organizations yields any results. I want to assume good faith, but these awards sound an awful lot like the equivalent of a diploma mill, companies that grant (or sell) awards solely for the purpose of awardees being able to claim the award. I'll defer to more knowledgeable people on these topics, but my own opinion is that such awards do not establish notability. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:49, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 3 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. LFaraone 01:38, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ma'am Magazine

edit
Ma'am Magazine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

not notable, no secondary sources --Addihockey10 e-mail 00:57, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 19 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,  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:00, 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, czar · · 10:43, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. czar · · 10:46, 3 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. LFaraone 01:42, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Joanna Klisowska

edit
Joanna Klisowska (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems to fail WP:NOTABILITY for biographies. Singer, only one reference to a 2003 lexicon. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:54, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (parlez) @ 09:38, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (speak) @ 09:38, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (gossip) @ 09:39, 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, czar · · 10:36, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Joanna Klisowska has recorded a CD with Peter Kooy.Xx236 (talk) 08:01, 7 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 (A9) by Tokyogirl79. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 21:06, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speak Love Life Lessons (album)

edit
Speak Love Life Lessons (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable album with no sources that I could find. Tinton5 (talk) 17:13, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 19 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,  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:51, 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, czar · · 10:32, 3 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. LFaraone 01:42, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hadith of Umar's speech of forbidding Mut'ah

edit
AfDs for this article:
Hadith of Umar's speech of forbidding Mut'ah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There are fourteen sources provided. Of those fourteen, two of them lead to extremely partisan Sunni/Shi'a debate sites; the other twelve all lead to primary sources, few of which are even cited properly. The sources, taken together, fail WP:RS and this specific hadith, without mainstream academic interest, fails WP:SIGCOV. Additionally, the intent here seems to be a push for a certain point of view, thus violating WP:NPOV. It's an inherently non-neutral article about a non-notable hadith containing smatterings of WP:OR as well. This is unfortunately commen with many hadith articles created, and now deleted, by the retired User:Striver.

Striver was a good editor overall, but the general outcomes for AfDs regarding his hadith articles was usually to delete. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hadith of the demise of Muhammad, in which a large number of them were all deleted at one time, is a good indicator. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hadith in praise of Umar, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Striver/Umar's raid against Ahl al-Bayt, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The land of Fadak and the Prophets inheritance and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ali opposed Abu Bakrs Kalifat. A great many more were simply redirected to other articles without formal deletion. I don't see why this article is any different. MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:54, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:58, 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, czar · · 10:31, 3 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 by nominator. Bearcat (talk) 18:15, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Make Way for Willie Nelson

edit

Withdraw:Foolishness? Laughable? As I said, I missed the Dropbox when looking over this thing alright? If I'd seen that I'd have whacked 'random article' and not looked back. Let's drop this AfD in the Archives before I drop all of you (as in leave.) MM (Report findings) (Past espionage) 06:20, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Make Way for Willie Nelson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Quite possibly good for CSD A7 if CD's fell under it. I'm not seeing anything that labels the CD as 'notable' under our guidelines when I do a Google search either. MM (Report findings) (Past espionage) 10:02, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. czar · · 10:26, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a part of Nelson's discography, and one of his few top ten albums from his run with RCA, it is relevant to keep the article. I wrote basic information when I created it, but more sources and probably more content can be added (as the comment above noted, the available, since the record was released during the 1960s). I've been working on Nelson related articles for the past years, but as you can notice, his discography, is composed by way too many records to take care of everything on a short time. By now, I just added a reference to the #9 on Hot Country albums.--GDuwenTell me! 17:16, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and speedy close. Aside from the deplorable foolishness of punching holes in the discographies of major artists, it's very clear that the nominator didn't perform a basic Google Books search; the very first hit, a Nelson bio, clearly demonstrates notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:05, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if this one's an NPA. I grant you guys I missed the Dropbox when XFDing it but check your papers before you file them if you will, first hit here is Amazon... MM (Report findings) (Past espionage) 06:20, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That "check your papers" link is plainly not a GBooks search. Just click the "books" link in the header. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 11:01, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Jesus H pardon my actions Amigo, I completely missed that it said Basic Google Books search, I've gotta learn to read the whole thing before speaking my mind. Trust me, it's an off-wiki problem of mine as well. Sorry :/ MM (Report findings) (Past espionage) 15:39, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Early work of a music legend that was top 10 upon its release? I don't usually want to call a nomination laughable, but this is definitely that. WP:BEFORE not done in any way. We have a tracklist, cover and AllMusic review, we don't need more than that. The idea of redlinking this is deplorable, and this isn't a CSD anything by some skatepunk afterschool band; it's Willie freakin' Nelson! Nate • (chatter) 03:45, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks... Thanks a lot... MM (Report findings) (Past espionage) 06:20, 4 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. SarahStierch (talk) 19:13, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wendy Zavaleta

edit
Wendy Zavaleta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No reliable sources cited, for some reason BLPPROD was declined but this has sat around for a month without being sourced and a Google search brings up basically nothing but IMDB, Linkedin and MySpace. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:01, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. czar · · 10:26, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - BLPPROD was not declined "for some reason" - as I have already explained on your talk page, the article was not unreferenced and thereofore was not eligible for BLPPROD. Whatever happened to AGF?! GiantSnowman 10:58, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - None of them are reliable external sources by any definition, let alone Wikipedia's. I find it rather extraordinarily bureaucratic to bother running this through AFD. Whatever happened to IAR? In any event, I didn't read your talk page note until after I started this AFD. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:07, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 3 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:41, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Brooks (footballer)

edit
Michael Brooks (footballer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable footballer - fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORTS. Hasn't played in a fully professional league and hasn't been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources Hack (talk) 09:59, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Has played for professional club in Adelaide United. Has also played club football at national league level. Very reputable South Australian footballer. Article perhaps needs to be expanded but should be kept. Local league however not very well covered in the media to say the least.Simione001 (talk) 10:06, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. czar · · 10:27, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. czar · · 10:27, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. czar · · 10:27, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. czar · · 10:28, 3 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 by nominator. Bearcat (talk) 17:56, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perez Benjamin

edit

Withdraw per that I was unaware that you need to a Google Books search before throwing down the AfD. Lesson learned let's close this down before anyone else has their time cut down. MM (Report findings) (Past espionage) 15:34, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perez Benjamin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails the '2 sources' rule, a search on Google isn't turning anything up either. MM (Report findings) (Past espionage) 09:47, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NOTICE: if 3 sources that fit the rules are added notify me and i'll Withdraw. MM (Report findings) (Past espionage) 09:49, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. czar · · 10:28, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. czar · · 10:28, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nova Scotia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
NPA yes? Is there a policy that states that a Books search needs to be done? MM (Report findings) (Past espionage) 09:48, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
NPA no. From WP:AFD: The minimum search expected is a Google Books search and a Google News archive search; Google Scholar is suggested for academic subjects. Such searches should in most cases take only a minute or two to perform. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 11:05, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
When I mentioned 'NPA yes?' I meant 'You are being sure not to break NPA Yes?' I must have missed that when I was learning about AfD. My mistake. MM (Report findings) (Past espionage) 15:32, 4 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. LFaraone 01:43, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Julieta Casimiro

edit
Julieta Casimiro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Serious lack of WP:RELIABLE sources to indicate any kind of notability other than puffery and WP:FRINGE pseudoscientific nonsense. Heiro 08:45, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Lack of signficant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. None of the sources used even come close to meeting our requirements, and my own Google searches turned up nothing even faintly promising. Article is a turmoiled mish-mash of pseudoscientific blither and puffery. Nothing worth salvaging or merging. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:44, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Utter waffle from start to finish. Paul B (talk) 09:34, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I was initially going to speedy this as a promotional article, but... the woman does have some claim of notability to her. I don't know that it's enough to keep, but I've found mention of her in a few scholarly articles. (Not including the BOMB article of course, which was written by a family member.) In them she's mentioned as an example of the shaman history and culture that still remains. It's enough to where she might and I stress might, be a weak keep as someone who is of notable enough influence in her area that she's cited in some scholarly texts. There aren't that many that I'm finding so far, hence the weak part. Now assuming that I can find enough to save the article for the council that she's a part of, I'd recommend that this redirect there instead. If not, then this might be a delete. I haven't quite decided yet. In any case, the article isn't nearly as bad as it previously was. I've pretty much nuked the previous format. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:12, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
At least one of those books is not a WP:RS, if it was it would not be published through bubok(an English language page here), see WP:SPS. Heiro 10:15, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also, you might want to see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Council of 13 Indigenous Grandmothers, where discussion of the sources for the 13 Grandmothers "sourcing" has been taking place. As well as Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#International Council of 13 Indigenous Grandmothers . Heiro 10:21, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. czar · · 10:29, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. czar · · 10:29, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Actually I had noticed the way the book had been published, but the thing is that the author would still be considered a potential RS since he does hold a doctorate in Latin American anthropology. It being self-published doesn't automatically mean that it isn't usable. Of course that doesn't mean that it's completely infalliable either. It just means that it can't be immediately discarded simply because it's self-published. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:36, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:SPS, where it says "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." Emphasis in original. Heiro
  • Comment: Has anyone reached out to Wikipedia editors from their nation to see if there's non-English language sources we're not using and should be? I would imagine that it would be hard to find English-language references for this person, but it does not mean they're not deserving of an article, either. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:18, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Have you looked at the article or its references? 3 of the 5 current references are in non English languages. Heiro 12:21, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My assumption was that the nomination did not feel those were good enough, which is why some more specialized knowledge may be beneficial. Are you arguing that the non-English sources are not reliable enough to confer notability? Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:13, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm arguing that the sources presented so far don't pass WP:SPS, WP:FRINGE or WP:RELIABLE. Have a look at them yourself, as you should have done before dropping a note suggesting we check non-English sources. If you can find sources in other languages that pass the relevant policies, then please present them.Heiro 13:23, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I searched in Spanish and found nothing useful except the Shaefer book. There's more about this person in English, unfortunately all in inreliable sources. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:57, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
!vote changed to neutral This particular member of the 13 appears to have more sourcing, in particular that article in BOMB magazine, and some of the spanish works. Article needs cleanup to be a biol and not a fringe pamphlet, but this may be a semi-notable fringe person. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:48, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
sigh delete again Damn, I didnt noticed the Bomb article was written by her daughter. back full circle! Gaijin42 (talk) 19:51, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I was just getting ready to ask you about that, haha. Also, the other Spanish language articles:
1.) Aparicio Mena, Alfonso J fails WP:SPS, published by a vanity press
2.) Jan M. Baud, Johanna L. Ypeij (2009) is a brief mention in a photo caption
3.) Zaragoza, Victor Gay (2011) is a one word mention in a work that wouldn't pass WP:FRINGE
4.) Schaefer, Carol (2009). La voz de las trece abuelas: Ancianas indígenas aconsejan al mundo. is the Spanish language version of the work described by you here as "that everyone involved with that publisher appears to be from the same family, so the notability and editorial oversight that would make this a reliable source may be suspect"
And counting the article written by the subjects daughter, that is all of the current references for the article. Heiro 20:11, 3 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. She passes notability guidelines in the art work - a bit o' extra research and knowledge of art publications - she passes GNG. SarahStierch (talk) 19:16, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Marilyn Arsem

edit
Marilyn Arsem (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems to fail WP:NOTABILITY for biographies (artist, the few references don't suggest mainstream coverage. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:38, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:19, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:58, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:58, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is enough to help reference the article and it confirms that the subject is locally prominent in her field over a long number of years, a past National Endowment for the Arts grant recipient, etc. However a lot of the coverage is quotation of the subject relative to the Mobius Group and I remain unsure whether I could really argue it meets WP:ARTIST (which sets a significantly higher standard than in many other fields, in my opinion). AllyD (talk) 05:51, 1 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 · · 07:40, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Boston Globe article is indepth for sure, though it has some rather strange examples like this, " As an artist, she's known for site-specific and durational pieces, such as "I Scream," which she performed in 2011 within earshot of a freefall ride in Sweden, where participants regularly shrieked. For several hours, Arsem stood in the courtyard of a the nearby Museum of World Culture, letting 30 liters of peppermint ice cream melt in her arms, screaming in unison with the plummeting people." And the claim from Munsell for the godmother claim is from the assistant curator of contemporary art at the Museum of Fine Arts. So in essence, it can pass GNG. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:04, 8 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 Nikah mut‘ah. Consensus that this does not require a separate article and should be merged (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:19, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hadith regarding the use of Nikah Mut'ah after Muhammad

edit
Hadith regarding the use of Nikah Mut'ah after Muhammad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While the hadith can be found on polemical sites, there are no reliable sources in English which I could find in regard to this specific hadith. All sources are primary except for one link to Answering-Ansar, a highly partisan site promoting a sectarian POV; it fails WP:RS, leaving the rest of the article with only primary sources. One of them - where Ibn Kathir supposedly said Ahmad Ibn Hanbal agreed with Nikah mut'ah - appears to be a blatant lie though I will have to check. In addition to failing WP:GNG, this also seems to be another one of Striver's trove of random articles about hadith used to push a Shi'ite slant - most of which have been deleted in past AfDs.

Striver was a good editor overall, but the general outcomes for AfDs regarding his hadith articles was usually to delete. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hadith of the demise of Muhammad, in which a large number of them were all deleted at one time, is a good indicator. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hadith in praise of Umar, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Striver/Umar's raid against Ahl al-Bayt, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The land of Fadak and the Prophets inheritance and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ali opposed Abu Bakrs Kalifat. A great many more were simply redirected to other articles without formal deletion. I don't see why this article is any different. MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:12, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:17, 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, czar · · 07:38, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Query There is no significant coverage in mainstream, scholarly publications; this article is the result of the OR of one user. What exactly makes it important? I'm not arguing, I'm asking honestly. I didn't find any significant coverage from reliable sources, and we know for a fact that per WP:OUTCOMES that the community has noticed attempts by the creator (who again was overall a great contributor, he just had some OR issues) to push a certain POV. I'm open to the fact that it could be important but I need to see more proof, as I haven't seen any yet. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:18, 15 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) 19:18, 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.
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) 19:19, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Onsager Medal

edit
Onsager Medal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of "independent" notability, created by User:Rajpaj who is indefinitely blocked for "Creating attack, nonsense or other inappropriate pages". Had not seen any edit for last 2 years. Solomon7968 (talk) 22:27, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my AFD criteria. I listed it for deletion as I thought it was a fringe award. But given the recent improvements by User:Barney the barney barney I am convinced the award is notable enough to deserve a wikipedia entry. Solomon7968 (talk) 21:57, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 20 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,  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:35, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment can we identify who the previous recipients of this medal were? At the moment we only have the 2013 award. If this is a lifetime award type academic award, it is likely to be useful as a list of biographies to work on. With this info, the article can be complete otherwise it will be incomplete and have little prospect of being completed. Barney the barney barney (talk) 09:27, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have now completed it with the list of the other awardees. Looking at who it's been presented to, it certainly looks like a pretty significant award. Such awards are often not covered in the media, but are significant. Sir Brian Pippard, Sir Michael Berry and Rodney Baxter all list the medal amongst their achievements in Who's Who, so it's significant to them, and they are significant. There is also some press coverage if you look for it, so for me that's enough to vote keep. Some of the bios are missing but they can be filled out. Barney the barney barney (talk) 10:11, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to sound harsh, but even with these improvements, the topic is not proven as notable. 1292simon (talk) 04:01, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but it meets the criteria for lists. It is essentially a very brief description of the awards and a list of recipients. Barney the barney barney (talk) 22:37, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How so? The Onsager Medal has not been established as notable, so why would a list of its recpients be notable? -- Whpq (talk) 04:03, 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, czar · · 07:35, 3 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. SarahStierch (talk) 19:20, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Brizel

edit
AfDs for this article:
Robert Brizel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A biography of this person was deleted at AfD in March 2012. A G4 speedy on this new article (created by the same editor) was declined as "not substantially identical to the deleted version". The comments on the previous AfD debate look applicable to this article, the references do not look strong enough, and I am not locating stronger references which establish WP:ANYBIO or WP:AUTHOR notability, so I am bringing this to AfD. AllyD (talk) 06:54, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I hadn't appreciated until I saw the published AfD notice that there had also been a deletion of a variant-named article in July 2012. I note that one editor recommended WP:SALT at that time. AllyD (talk) 06:57, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. czar · · 07:29, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 3 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) 19:25, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lázně Bludov

edit
Lázně Bludov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to be promotional and lacks notability as per WP:SIGCOV. Sole source is the official website. Article also makes factually dubious and unsupported claims. Admin declined A-7 speedy deletion on grounds subject might have some minimal significance. Ad Orientem (talk) 06:04, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I have added a reference from the Czech Tourist Authority on the factual side of the article (the spa's foundation). Google Books searches turn up several publication references, though not in full view. I take your point about the actually dubious claims, though these are common with spas, and can be covered by normal editing? The snippet from the "Czechoslovakia Today" book (1964) does indicate that children with cardiac conditions were/are sent there. AllyD (talk) 06:20, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep or merge into Bludov (Šumperk District) which already has very basic coverage of the spa. AllyD (talk) 06:43, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. czar · · 07:32, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. czar · · 07:32, 3 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. SarahStierch (talk) 19:26, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Andrec

edit
Michael Andrec (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSICBIO. this is essentially a stub, and the sources are not third party. LibStar (talk) 06:25, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
please show these sources in Cyrillic that meet WP:RS. LibStar (talk) 06:31, 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, czar · · 05:45, 3 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 Withdrew by nominator. Might have some hope. Let's AGF and wait a week or so.. SarahStierch (talk) 19:29, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Downing

edit
Jacob Downing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This Union Army soldier gets various mentions, particularly for an attack on a band of Native Americans[16][17] and a more detailed bio by possibly a descendent.[18] However, he fails WP:SOLDIER as far as I can see. The April 1864 attack was relatively small and he is not even mentioned in the Sand Creek massacre article. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:32, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 06:23, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. czar · · 07:33, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. czar · · 07:33, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. czar · · 07:33, 3 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. In addition to a clear consensus to keep, the nominator withdrew their nomination without any opposing delete !votes or active discussion between editors. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:00, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Juice It Up!

edit
Juice It Up! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Multiple sources do not provide evidence of notability WP:CORPDEPTH for this corporate advertisement. Ad Orientem (talk) 04:31, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. czar · · 05:24, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. czar · · 05:24, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. czar · · 05:24, 3 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 City Year. SarahStierch (talk) 19:30, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

City Year London

edit
City Year London (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The overall organization is certainly notable, but I don't think we would normally say the same about the individual city chapters, and the net effect of an article like this is promotional DGG ( talk ) 01:17, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and add a paragraph in City Year, I don't think a full merger is justified - the BBC London article makes it worth a mention. I was the person who had a look at the article 3 months ago and added the 'primary sources' tag. At the time, I had a look for something reasonably sunstantial and independent about City Year London and couldn't find anything else (apart from the BBC source). They seemed to be doing good work, so I didn't want to propose deletion at the time, but no new sources have been added since. Sionk (talk) 14:46, 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, WikiPuppies bark dig 03:59, 3 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:38, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Siamak Namazi

edit
Siamak Namazi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (people). Has not been the "subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." All coverage of subject is in passing. Plot Spoiler (talk) 16:54, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (chat) @ 22:42, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (natter) @ 22:42, 26 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, WikiPuppies bark dig 03:55, 3 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. (non-admin closure) czar · · 03:26, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rajon Das

edit
Rajon Das (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Deleted sole footnote reference which was dead link. Two non text references mention minor and non significant award. Article is likely an advertisement and subject fails to meet notability standards as per WP:CREATIVE and WP:ANYBIO. Ad Orientem (talk) 03:26, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. czar · · 05:31, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. czar · · 05:31, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. czar · · 05:31, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Rajon Das is the most notable architect of the Sylhet region. The architect of most notable architectural conservation at this region and the head of one of the only two architectural schools here. Rossi101 (talk) 17:38, 3 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 redirect to The Dark Legacy of Shannara. (non-admin closure) czar · · 03:25, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Witch Wraith

edit
Witch Wraith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable book. Fails WP:NOTBOOK. reddogsix (talk) 03:25, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. czar · · 05:31, 3 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:37, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Olga Gorokhova

edit
Olga Gorokhova (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

lack of reliable sources to support notability — MusikAnimal talk 03:17, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. czar · · 05:31, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. czar · · 05:31, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. czar · · 05:31, 3 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. (non-admin closure) czar · · 03:22, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Premsutra

edit
Premsutra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Advertisement. Article lacks notability as per WP:FILMNOT. References appear to be primary and promotional sources. Ad Orientem (talk) 03:13, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. czar · · 05:32, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. czar · · 05:32, 3 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. withdrawn DGG ( talk ) 18:07, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Usha Rama College of Engineering and Technology

edit
Usha Rama College of Engineering and Technology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to be advertising. Lacks notability as per WP:NONPROFIT, WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG. Sole source is the school's webpage. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:02, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Withdraw AfD Nom On the basis of the above cited de-facto acceptance of notability for all degree awarding schools, which I strongly disagree with, I withdraw my AfD Nom. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:54, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. czar · · 05:33, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. czar · · 05:33, 3 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 noted by the nominator, however, clean up is necessary for this article. v/r, (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:04, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bharat Ek Khoj

edit
Bharat Ek Khoj (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article has multiple issues, including no reliable sources. There are multiple sub pages created as to build up the main article, but have no RS. Article appears to be written for promotion and/or advertisement according to WP:NOTFORPROMOTION Tyros1972 Talk 01:54, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. czar · · 05:34, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. czar · · 05:34, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. czar · · 05:34, 3 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. SarahStierch (talk) 19:32, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Raymond J. Noonan

edit
Raymond J. Noonan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject lacks notability as per WP:SCHOLAR, WP:BASIC and WP:AUTHOR. While the subject IS published there is no indication that his work rises to the level of notability required for an article. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:48, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. czar · · 05:34, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. czar · · 05:35, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. czar · · 05:35, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I can't decide if the subject's work is enough to meet our criteria or not - it is a narrow thing, on first glance. May review this one later, so someone ping me if more information comes out. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:50, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The lack of sourcing is one thing, but the claim and backing seems to be out there. Publisher mini bio helps a bit.[26] The sexquest website could be a primary, but hasn't seen activity since 06. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:19, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. User:Randykitty left a note on my talkpage asking if I could comment here. As much as I hate to reduce the visibility of a sexology topic or sexologist, I am having trouble locating enough RS's to meet the notability requirements for this BLP. I did an OVID search, and found only 5 published works, the most recent of which was >5 years old, and I couldn't find >any< publications in peer reviewed journals. The websites describing Noonan also appear old/outdated. (Even Noonan's own website, [27], appears to have been last updated in 2004.) I cannot locate an h-index for him (which possibly relates to his pubs not being in journals). I have not been able to find book reviews of the works Noonan co-edited. So, overall, I am having find evidence of meeting WP:BLP and have to support the nomination.— James Cantor (talk) 13:56, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per well researched note by James Cantor -- I very much appreciate expert opinion weighing in pro or con in AfD. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 22:18, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. James Cantor's opinion is based around WP:BLP, but his research is enough to convince me that there also isn't a case for WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:19, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per James Cantor. Misses WP:ACADEMIC, WP:BIO, and WP:GNG. --Randykitty (talk) 07:21, 9 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:Jimfbleak under criteria G11 and A7. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Emmay Entertainment

edit
Emmay Entertainment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to be advertising. No sources and no notability as per WP:CORPDEPTH. Article creator has a track record of deleted articles for the same reason. May qualify for G-11 or A-7 fast track. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:09, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. czar · · 05:35, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. czar · · 05:35, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. czar · · 05:35, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I've tagged it for a speedy for those exact reasons, although if it doesn't pass under either (unlikely) I wanted to voice my argument for a delete. There just isn't anything out there for this company as of yet to show that it needs its own article at this point in time. It could serve as a redirect to Nikhil Advani, although that looks like it needs some work as well. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:55, 3 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. (non-admin closure) czar · · 03:30, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2013 European Athletics Indoor Championships – Women's 4 × 400 metres relay

edit
2013 European Athletics Indoor Championships – Women's 4 × 400 metres relay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable as per WP:SPORTSEVENT Ad Orientem (talk) 00:24, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. czar · · 05:36, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. czar · · 05:36, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. SPORTSEVENT doesn't really apply here. This is neither a game nor a series. Looks like a reasonable fork of a high-level competition to me. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:22, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Our policy for keeping these pages is pretty consistent, though I am not totally sure it is sensible--they might be better merged. But I'm not going to advocate disturbing the settled consensus. DGG ( talk ) 19:02, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Unless there is a way to work this with merges that don't break the pages and make them nigh-unreadable, the existing page should remain per previous consensus. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:30, 8 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2013_June_3&oldid=1142631594"