Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 March 21

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 20 March	22 March >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was MERGE and REDIRECT to List of brown dwarfs. Spinning Spark 09:27, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WISEPC J222623.05+044003.9

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

I think these articles lack regarding Wikipedia:Notability (astronomical objects) for having little information apart from physical parameters and discovery data and fail to meet the general notability guideline. They are very similar to the brown dwarfs discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WISEPC J234841.10-102844.4, please check that out. Hekerui (talk) 23:17, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages as explained above:

Click "show" to see list of articles

Delete as lacking significant in depth coverage in independent third party sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:42, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per WP:NASTRO and current consensus for similar articles. These articles are near duplicates of each other, except for the actually stellar data, which best remains in an astronomy database. (As a side note, I would recommend that we put all of the above listings in a collapsible box, for the sake of brevity.) - Mr X 00:55, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In December 2012 and January 2013, the requirement for merging the content was discussed in depth at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Astronomical_objects/Archive_23#WISE_object_notability and Talk:WISEPC_J150649.97+702736.0#Notability. The consensus was to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomical objects/Archive 23#Megamerge the content into a list article. This is a borderline case of FORUM SHOPPING and should be decided by consensus with proper discussions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomical objects. This is not the place to decide to mass delete Category:WISE objects. -- Kheider (talk) 01:19, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would you care to provide policy-based support for your contention that "This is not the place to decide to mass delete Category:WISE objects" ? Are you claiming that AfD does not apply to these articles for some reason? Stuartyeates (talk) 02:36, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:NASTRO#Special cases states, "When in doubt, bring the issue to WikiProject Astronomical objects for discussion." It does not say to go forum shopping when you do not want to compromise. -- Kheider (talk) 15:07, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I linked the recent deletion discussion where this archived discussion came up and the articles were deleted anyway. What does that tell us? That your

is a not an argument. It's insulting to have every action I take accompanied with a big bad warning label when I'm the only one who bothered to actually put in the work to deal with a deluge of directory entries disguised as articles. And if you mark articles with asterisks, explain what that means or remove them. Hekerui (talk) 13:27, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's insulting that you have gone forum shopping to avoid the workload of merging the content to a list! All of your "supports" for deletion came before I posted on your Afds. -- Kheider (talk) 14:59, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is anything to merge, the articles are all the same except for numbers that can be found in list in the papers, and this is why I requested deletion. Hekerui (talk) 18:57, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MERGE to a list as per consensus established in January. -- Kheider (talk) 02:07, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that I don't see the consensus that you're referring to. The discussion was more than two months ago. Has a list article been created yet? I'm not opposed to some sort of merge, if there is in fact consensus to do so at WikiProject Astronomical objects. - Mr X 02:18, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question why are some of these WISE, some WISEPC and some WISEPA? If these were all discovered by the Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer would they be potentially merged into List of objects discovered by the Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer, List of Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer objects, List of WISE objects, or something else entirely? Stuartyeates (talk) 02:55, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to relevant lists. WP:NASTRO does apply here, but it doesn't say to straight-up delete these. They should be re-directed to the relevant list-of article. The onus is on interested editors to populate the list with meaningful data, but deletion is the last resort, which I don't think is called-for yet. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 03:10, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would you care to nominate as to "the relevant list-of article" ? or would one need to be built? Stuartyeates (talk) 03:21, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to have been built: List of brown dwarfs - even has a WISE section. Perhaps not the most elegant solution, but a place to redirect exists. More work is being spent on this AfD than would take to populate this list with info from the above WISE objects. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 03:46, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of brown dwarfs, per WP:NASTRO and previous discussion on WT:ASTRO. These do not meet the notability criteria of WP:NASTRO (at least the half dozen I checked don't, I'm willing to take the others on good faith), as they have not received significant individual study. A list entry (with redirects) is the correct place for them. Modest Genius ^talk 12:38, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The guideline says to merge but.... I'm not sure we should be keeping random lists of non-notable objects out there. Wikipedia is not SDSS, MPC, or WISE. Why should wiki have a database when more complete databases exist elsewhere? Wouldn't it make more sense to have lists of notable objects with an external link to the most relevant database at the bottom? WP:LSC seems to suggest this course of action and directly contradicts what we came up with per WP:NASTRO. So I'm actually more of a mind to delete per WP:LSC. One could probably make a case that WP:NASTRO might be amended as to inclusion criteria on a list (i.e. I can see things like List of nearest terrestrial exoplanets having otherwise non-notable objects, but not List of galaxies or List of brown dwarfs). Sailsbystars (talk) 15:18, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to a list. I also think this nomination is rather reckless. The nominators has not provided any evidence that they are not, in fact, notable. They has not searched relevant publications databases and has not reviewed the relevant literature. The main reason behind this nominations seems to be to delete as many articles as possible without regard for what is good for Wikipedia. Ruslik_Zero 17:28, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All there is on these brown dwarfs are the physical parameters and the dates of discovery. Now if you think these may be individually notable, why would you !vote to merge them? Hekerui (talk) 20:03, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question: are these objects best classified as WISE objects or as brown dwarfs? Is it correct to thing that WISE refers to the apparatus of discovery rather than an intrinsic property of the object? Wouldn't it be best to organise things by intrinsic properties? And if we don't know enough of their intrinsic properties to organise them, I'm not sure that they even deserve a place on a list. Confirming the distance by trigonometric parallax seems like a useful benchmark, since then we know the position of the object with a reasonable accuracy. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:20, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Objects such as stars (or brown dwarfs in this case) are best listed by Right ascension since that will not change. All of these objects are brown dwarfs discovered by the WISE spacecraft. And yes, improved estimates (whether based on spectrum or parallax) can have modest changes to the estimated distances. -- Kheider (talk) 23:02, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After many hours of work, I have added all these WISE brown dwarfs (and most WISE brown dwarfs) to List of brown dwarfs in a usable and sortable table. I still think brown dwarfs less than 30 light-years from the Sun should NOT be re-directed. Some of the brown dwarfs are notable for other reasons. -- Kheider (talk) 22:58, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for all your hard work. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:12, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The policy-based opinions are firmly pointed towards deletion, seems a shame though. J04n(talk page) 01:47, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Francis E. Dec

There have been attempts to recruit editors of specific viewpoints. If you've come here in response to such recruitment, please review the relevant Wikipedia policy on recruitment of editors.

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

Not enough notability to meet WP:BASIC. Article has Wikipedia calling the subject a kook, paranoid schizophrenic, etc. based on secondary sources that appear to be fan sites, forum posts, and obscure publications. He may in fact be a cult figure, but apparently hasn't gotten the attention of reliable sources. LuckyLouie (talk) 22:14, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Please examine the reasons given during the first AfD resulting in the original Keep consensus. The article may fail WP:NOT on several fronts, but it is such an entertaining, feverish masterwork of homage I'd hate to see it gone. (I've copied it to one of my Sandbox pages in case it gets blown up). Might I also add that, as a former Reverend of the Church of the SubGenius (in 1988, ordained by the Rev. Bob), I can attest that Dec has been a well-known fringe figure both in and out of the Church for decades. Sadly, it's, um, the sources for this that are missing. There are thousands of Wikipedia articles less sourced and more deserving of AfDs than this shrine. Or maybe it's just WP:ILIKEIT. Anyway, Keep. Thanks. --Seduisant (talk) 00:40, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The last AfD assumed reliable sources where there were, in fact, none. Or maybe they hoped a huge WP article would provoke interest in Francis E.Dec, lead to mainstream coverage, and result in better sourcing. But he's no more notable now than he was then. Remove Wikipedia from the picture and the fan-club website becomes the top search engine hit. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:34, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete, sadly Having expressed my admiration elsewhere for the pure fannishness of this article, I have to say that his notability seems, in the end, to be perpetuated within a very small circle of, well, not his admirers exactly, but you get the picture. This guy has been around for decades, but if you mask out the various Wikipedia repackagers, he simply disappears except for one really confusing bit which only comes into focus when you find out that you're looking at an obscure "alternative" novel. I haven't gone over every reference in the article but my impression is that they are all either fan sites or primary sources. Mangoe (talk) 02:33, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Francis E. Dec. Herostratus (talk) 03:28, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Francis E. Dec. Please see reasons for "keep" during first deletion discussion.— 109.58.109.169 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 05:00, 22 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Having looked at the previous discussion, I have to say that the general rationale of "we want to have an article on this guy even though the sourcing stinks" is not compelling to me. Mangoe (talk) 13:22, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, it's poorly sourced. But not unsourced. I'm persuaded that WP:NOT may be satisfied after all, as one of Dec's rants was reproduced verbatim on the back cover of R. Crumb's Weirdo magazine; and Nassau County DA Frank Gulotta prosecuted Dec in his forgery trial. Gulotta later became a judge of the New York Supreme Court. Dec's a footnote character, to be sure, but notable enough to have an article. --Seduisant (talk) 16:11, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. That a notable judge, before he achieved notability, once prosecuted the man doesn't make Dec notable any more than the opponent in every trial Abraham Lincoln argued automatically merits a page. That one of his rants appeared on the back cover of a notable fringe magazine does not make him notable. That a Danish periodical once published one of his rants does not make him notable. Show me a few significant sources that discuss the man, such that we don't have to cobble together an account of him through original research of primary sources, fanboy websites and obscure small-run periodicals and then we will have something to discuss. Agricolae (talk) 00:17, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Danish academic, peer-reviewed publication Trappe Tusind apparently considered Dec "notable" enough to publish an article and a translation of one his rants written by Danish author and translator Harald Voetmann Christiansen (http://arkiv.trappetusind.dk/SaernummeromOversaettelse.pdf, pp. 95-103). 109.58.109.169 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:35, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Peer reviewed" is a stretch. A literary magazine that solicits experimental prose, yes. An academic journal, no. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:03, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Based on what I see so far, Delete. The arguments in the previous AfD mostly amounted to the bold assertion that he was notable, in spite of the small number of ghits that refer to him. Even the closing admin indicated that there would be little left were the article to be made policy-compliant (no attempt to do so has been made in the interim. For all I can tell, this Wikipedia article may be the only full biography of the man that has ever been written. If the best that can be found is the 5-sentence introduction to his Danish-published rant that basically says he was a disbarred attorney who lived with his brother and then didn't and wrote a lot of rants, that is not the makings of an article. That is not what we are supposed to be doing here, writing new material to build a shrine to someone otherwise obscure. I just don't see the level of significant coverage talked about in WP:NOTABILITY or WP:BIO. Agricolae (talk) 00:17, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's such a shame to dele this article. I understand that it really doesn't comply with Wikipedia guidelines in general, but honestly what is gained from deleting this article? The point of Wikipedia is not to be the most accurate and proper encyclopedia in the world. On this front Wikipedia will never be able to compete with Britannica or Americana. Its true purpose is to be an accesible store of unparalleled amounts of information. In this case, because Wikipedia is the only website I could find with this amount of information about Francis Dec, and because he is pretty borderline when it comes to WP:GNG, I believe common sense should trump Wikipedia guidelines, and the article should be KEPT. --Ben Knapp (talk) 03:13, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SOmeone out there has a website where an article can be written. It's not our job to do their job. Mangoe (talk) 14:05, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is a fun article, and it speaks to the value the Wikipedia has over most other knowledge compendiums in that we are truly a repository of obscure subjects otherwise left unnoticed by history. That being said, the purpose of Wikipedia is not to grant notability to said obscure subjects by maintaining an unsourced article. If you are truly a fan of this man, then commit yourself to establishing valid sources. Deleting this article should not be confused with erasing it; should you develop the required sources, the article will be here waiting for you. That last fact is, of course, our true value as a project. The existence of our deleted page archive is an oft forgotten and undervalued treature trove of randomness... Hiberniantears (talk) 15:59, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – The fundamental question here is "notability" and however quaint or entertaining the subject of this article may be, a careful check on Google shows no significant news coverage but only sideline references to Dec in articles about other people or subjects and the books items apart from reprints of wiki and similar articles proved pretty negative as well. Alumni lists and disbarred lawyers. Note there was apparently another man of the same name who died in the 1920's and there are some hits on him. Jpacobb (talk) 17:39, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG, WP:V, and WP:RS. A closer look at the references provided show that this article is crafted upon fan sites and primary source information compiled by those fan sites. In order to establish notability, a Wikipedia topic needs significant coverage in secondary reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. I cannot find any sources on which to build an article that complies with Wikipedia policies and guidelines regarding verifiability and sourcing. An argument could be made that an absence of those sources makes this OR. Location (talk) 00:16, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:54, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maharishi University of Management and Technology

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

Not notable, no secondary sources. I've searched Google News, Google Books, High Beam, Credo and Questia and cannot find any sources. All sources currently in the article are primary sources. — Keithbob • Talk • 21:39, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep: A verifiable, UGC recognised [1] degree awarding institute of higher education should be kept. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 15:06, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, it seems the bar is quite low for universities in terms of notability. I'm willing to withdraw the nomination, if others agree with Amartyabag.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:21, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Educational institutions above High Schools need to prove only its existence in real world, ie, it need to be only verifiable from secondary sources, even primary sources will suffice. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 05:15, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep: I agree with Amartyabag. --Chmarkine (talk) 21:15, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Naturally. Accredited degree-awarding tertiary institution with university status. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:53, 27 March 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 voted to keep. Clearly a WP:POINTy nomination. --Kinu ^t/_c 01:33, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Saman Hasnain

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

Conflict of Interest

There is major conflict of interest by one of the writers who is adamant about defaming this person. A story taken out one year ago has no head or tail and is still not followed up. When Mercury news was contacted they are not giving any answers and hence this is a rumour that has no substance on the controversy headline. There is no follow up news to sustain this rumour as well. Please be aware that rumours are also done via major newspapers. --Sonisona 21:35, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but remove any unsourced allegations, or add retractions of allegations. she is a beauty pageant winner in a contest whose other winners have articles. unless the others are all separately notable for other achievements, why single her out? AFD is not a forum to resolve COI or BLP issues, unless the figure is marginally notable and requests deletion, or is really solely here to be attacked. I dont think its the latter.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:16, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep/comment - The pageant is notable, and other winners of the pageant have articles. Technically, Saman Hasnain meets basic notability as she won it, and we seem to have a precedent for articles on winners for most notable pageants. Conflict of interest editing isn't a reason to delete an article - if anything, the article should be protected/semi-protected and monitored. Mabalu (talk) 02:22, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, rationale does not provide any reason for deletion. BLP issues should be dealt with by editing. --Kinu ^t/_c 02:32, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have also blocked the nominator temporarily for repeated violations of WP:NPA, such as at the article's talk page. --Kinu ^t/_c 03:05, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but remove any allegations, or add retractions of allegations if there are any. There have been no weight to the stories... and if there have been no follow up done then there is no point to keep false allegations or rumours. Also there has to be further investigations done, so I have reported several times, that I have contacted the Mercury News and the lady who wrote this is no longer working there. There has to be issues, which are not coming on the front. But one has to take note that after one whole year there are no reports, no stories and no other allegations by the District Attorney. --Sonisona 01:08, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Why did you nominate this article for deletion if you want it to be kept? That seems to fall under disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Discuss this on the talk page of the article instead of continuing to edit war. --Kinu ^t/_c 01:28, 24 March 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. "Keep", in this instance, means excuslively Convert to dab page per clarityfiend/Mark v Keeper | 76 14:58, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stemple

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

WP:DICDEF very unlikely to be able to be expanded upon. transwiki to wiktionary if they want it. Nathan Johnson (talk) 21:41, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Convert into a dab page (Adam Stemple, Stemple Creek, Lisa Stemple of Mad About You, Aaron Stemple), with a wiktionary link to stemple, an already-existing definition. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:50, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Convert into a dab page, per Clarityfiend. This term has multiple meanings and no one meaning seems dominant. There is also the Stempel Type Foundry (easy misspelling) and a Stemple gun at List of firearms. --Mark viking (talk) 00:27, 23 March 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. J04n(talk page) 01:51, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Florin Călinescu

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

Notability not established Uberaccount (talk) 21:28, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand. Florin Călinescu was (together with Andreea Esca) one of the iconic stars of Pro TV (the biggest private TV channel in Romania) between 1996 and 2000. Adevărul wrote "If Adrian Sârbu is "the father of Pro TV", then am I looking at "the mother of Pro TV"? Isn't it hard for you without "your child"?" [2]). See also [3], [4] (in Romanian language), as well as the many hits in Google Books (in Romanian, English and German language). Razvan Socol (talk) 06:33, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep plentiful Romanian-language sources. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:33, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems to have had a long career in Romanian film and tv, including playing main characters and playing in multinational films (French-Romanian). Several Romanian reliable sources, including an "exclusive interview" in EVZ. Iselilja (talk) 15:53, 23 March 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. J04n(talk page) 01:53, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cao Chunying

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

Notability not established Uberaccount (talk) 21:10, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:NTRACK having competed in the 1995 IAAF World Indoor Championships. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. per WP:NTRACK. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:10, 23 March 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. J04n(talk page) 01:54, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Montosh

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

This is a non-notable micronation. There are no independent reliable sources about this topic to suggest its notability or from which to build reliable, verifiable content. Peacock (talk) 21:03, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Poor referencing and formatting, plus a lack of independent reliable sources. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 21:08, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a probable WP:HOAX. A Google search on the subject turns up nothing on this alleged micronation.^King Jakob _C2 00:03, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:55, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, It's a Problem

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

Unpublished book; fails WP:N. (No speedy deletion criteria.) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 20:58, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:N and WP:CRYSTAL. Revolution1221 (talk) 21:13, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For the reasons above. Uberaccount (talk) 21:15, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

this is speedy surely? Barney the barney barney (talk) 22:12, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails everything. Perhaps "books" or even "products or services" could be added to CSD A7... --Randykitty (talk) 22:20, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is pretty much the book equivalent of WP:GARAGE. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 01:30, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As far as speedy goes, there's nothing in here that would qualify it for anything. It's not overtly promotional, nor does it lack context. The book is non-notable, as there's not even a whisper out there about this book in any place other than this Wikipedia page. If it gets published and gains notability, it can be re-added- but not before then. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:56, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:55, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Faizan Khawaja

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

Insufficient citations, notability issues and self promotion Faizan Munawar Varya^chat_{contributions} 10:53, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 March 6. Snotbot t • c » 11:05, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 6 March 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, Courcelles 02:54, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable under WP:BIO, insufficient sources DavidTTTaylor (talk) 17:00, 13 March 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) 20:52, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relist rationale: the page in question's creator was not notified of this discussion.

Delete as unsourced BLP (thefashionbugs.com does not qualify for RS). In addition, it is promotional. Beagel (talk) 14:14, 26 March 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. J04n(talk page) 01:55, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nan Koehler

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

Mixed feelings about this. There are a couple reliable references about this midwife, but they don't focus on anything in the article, they focus on a single criminal prosecution, which is kinda BLP1E. There's some history of BLP issues in the history here, too, which increases my sense that a BLP1E deletion is the right approach here. Didn't see signficant reviews of the book, but I may have missed something. j⚛e decker ^talk 20:29, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:AUTHOR and WP:BOOK. Qworty (talk) 04:07, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Took a while to evaluate her notability, partly because the article as written gives no indication why she might be considered notable. This LA Times article suggests two possible reasons: it says her book is "an essential reference for many midwives", and she was criminally prosecuted for practicing medicine without a license, pleaded no contest, and was sentenced to a year in jail. However, Google News search provides no evidence that the case had lasting impact. As for her book, Google Books finds some mentions but not significant coverage. All in all she fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:BLP1E. --MelanieN (talk) 18:41, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:BLP1E would seem to apply here. There is the trial coverage but that appears to be it for significant coverage. Not enough to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 14:11, 26 March 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. Those wishing to keep have provided underwhelming, if any, rationales for why it should be kept. Keeper | 76 15:20, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

10ticks

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

Small local company, previously deleted as not notable. It's been userfied, cleaned up and moved back into main space but the notability concerns have not been addressed. It's still a small company that has received primarily local and narrow specialist coverage and won a very local award. At least two of the refs are dead links. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 21:30, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Cameron11598 (Converse) 22:21, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Cameron11598 (Converse) 22:21, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

10ticks awards include, only one of which is local the rest are national(see below), they have just not been added. There are also links to books by 10ticks being sold in South Africa. Australia and Malaysia. The product is also used in 60% of UK secondary schools and around the world.
National Business Awards 2006 – Regional Highly Commended; Government DTi e-commerce award 2005 - Winner; North-west e-commerce award 2003, 2004, 2005 – Runner up; e-business of the Year 2004 - Winner; HP Business Vision UK 2004 - Runner Up; National Sage Business Awards ‘Best Growth in Technology’ 2003 - Runner up; Bolton and Bury Small business of the Year 2001 – Winner — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.46.99.136 (talk) 12:02, 14 March 2013 (UTC) — 80.46.99.136 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete. These 'awards' and almost-awards do not add up to encyclopedic significance, as the lack of general coverage also indicates. That this product is used in 60% of elementary schools around the world is hard to believe--I suppose this was infelicitous writing. I don't see any evidence of 60% usage in the UK either; what I do see is that the article tries to make as much as it can out of very little solid sourced content (like that "interview" with Ian Fisher--at 1438 characters it's even too short for DYK).
IP, I believe you have a registered account which you used to comment in the first AfD: please use it. Also, please clean up the layout; not sticking to convention with bullet points etc. makes this AfD unattractive and confusing. Drmies (talk) 15:23, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable. Significant coverage in independent reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.183.125.200 (talk) 10:17, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep U81I82 (talk) 10:41, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This business apparently makes math course work for education. It's a subsidiary of Fisher Education, another non-notable business that we don't have an article for, so there's no redirect target. These minor trade awards simply do not have the kind of wide impact needed to turn a business into an encyclopedia subject. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:19, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: is notable. Significant coverage in reliable sources. - Ret.Prof (talk) 19:29, 18 March 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, Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 20:29, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep -- a small company, but probably significant. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:53, 22 March 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. A strange one, to be actually kind of close to notable in several different fields. Between this discussion and the previous, though, it seems she's just not there yet per our standards for inclusion. No bias against recreation if better resources that focus on her directly and in depth as her career(s) grow. Keeper | 76 03:16, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Christina Lindley

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

I'm renominating this article as the first debate (in which I voted) ended with a no consensus and only four votes almost two months ago. I think I'm still going to stand by my first vote as it doesn't seem she has gained much attention since then. However, if other users feel this article should be kept, I'm happy to withdraw. I found a recent press release here that says she joined Phil Ivey's (who is notable) team and she has received attention for being part of his team here and two non-English links here (seems to talk about her a bit but nothing that seems notable) and here (minor mention). She has also received coverage in Card Player magazine here, here, here, here, here, here in the past month and a French article here. The cardplayer.com coverage seems to be quite a bit, with one article even calling her "notable", but it's only for participating in tournaments and not winning any notable awards or achievements. Several of the "keep" votes in the first debate were because she has posed in several notable magazines but I argued that there hadn't been substantial coverage about this. She is not notable as a model or an actress but she may have potential poker notability in the future. Wikipedia:Notability (poker players) and Wikipedia:WikiProject_Poker#Biography_article_notability_criteria say a player is notable if they have won a major poker competition, been inducted into the Poker Hall of Fame or have won $1M in a single event and played at Legends of Poker but did not win and was sponsored to play at the World Series of Poker but did not win either. In the previous nomination, I also mentioned that I found this (probably not reliable) that mentioned she was the first woman to win a "WSOP main event" but there wasn't any other evidence to support this. I hope this second renomination can provide a better consensus perhaps from poker experts. SwisterTwister talk 20:01, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It doesn't say she won the main event (no woman has yet), only that it's her ambition. Man, she was one BIG baby: "At five-foot nine-inches with green eyes, Lindley was born September 18, 1983 ..." Clarityfiend (talk) 05:53, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I stripped it and sourced it as best I could. All I can see is PR and PR and PR. She's obviously done some at least borderline notable stuff. Sigh. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 19:35, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing notable about her. For the movie she acted in she is not listed in our cast list, so does not appear to have had a notable role.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:03, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing here which meets GNG or WP:NMODEL. None of the sources applied meet IRS, each being a press release. A reasonable search doesn't find anything much better (this 2012 interview was the best I found, and I doubt it meets RS). If at some point in the future this subject gains significant media coverage, then this could be rebuilt, but as of this datestamp, delete. BusterD (talk) 16:48, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:58, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Staegr

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

Non-notable commercial product, no significant independent sources Deltahedron (talk) 18:00, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. weakly. The only news source I've found for this stock market metric is the website of the coiner: This is where STAEGR™ enters, a new test I developed for my investment software Conscious Investor. There are book and Scholar hits as well: they all share the name of the coiner, John Price. The title should apparently be STAEGR. That writer trademarked the term and uses it to sell software that embodies his stock trading method. I don't see anyone else using the term; the "glossary" page cited points back to him as well. Non-notable neologism that's apparently intended to sell something. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:51, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I added two external links: I believe the term is in quite common use in value investing. Jpnow (talk) 05:42, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is needed for notability is significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Mere mentions in news items are not enough. A masters thesis is not usually considered a suitable source: see WP:SCHOLARSHIP Deltahedron (talk) 21:51, 7 March 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, Courcelles 02:51, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia:Not a dictionary and there are no reliable sources to show notability yet DavidTTTaylor (talk) 17:04, 13 March 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, Keeper | 76 19:17, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, no credible assertion of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:52, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NDCL Water Polo

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

This page has obviously biased and has no citations. Scientific Alan 2 ^{(Click here to talk)}^{(What have I done?)}^(Me) 18:48, 21 March 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. J04n(talk page) 10:38, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Hall

AfDs for this article:

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

Recreated after being deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kelly Hall (2nd nomination). No evidence of meeting WP:NMODEL Boleyn (talk) 18:17, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (speedy) Is there any reason for this not to be a CSD G4, i.e. is the article substantially different from that deleted through the previous AfD? The references, such as they are, look like they were probably available in the previous article which concluded with deletion. No further evidence of notability. AllyD (talk) 20:26, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't know what the last article was like, but I suspect there's nothing substantially different. This version was nominated for speedy deletion by User:FunnyPika, but that was as a G7, and it was removed by another editor. Boleyn (talk) 21:11, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Appearing (probably topless) on page 3 of the Sun is I think clear evidcne that she is NN. If she were notable, the article would say something substantial about her. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:33, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Going to try and gut it and source it (if possible) - but just to note that it's not G4able. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 19:41, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nope, I've got nothing. Doesn't meet notability criteria. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 19:45, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The fact that her appearing on the 3rd page of a tabloid, a specific tabloid at that, is mentioned twice in the article, seems to indicate she has done nothing truly notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:06, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I am thinking some of the other people listed in the Page 3 idol section are also not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:11, 28 March 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. J04n(talk page) 10:45, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agenda: Grinding America Down

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

Deprodded by author who felt that removing paraphrases was sufficient to circumvent "Fails WP:GNG". There are zero sources for this film on Google Books, and only five hits on Google News, of which three are "such-and-such local church is showing Agenda: Grinding America Down". I see nothing to suggest that it comes within a mile of meeting WP:NFILM — everyone associated with it is redlinked, and the only award doesn't seem sufficient. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:11, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There are the two reviews and the award, although I'm not entirely sure that this is enough at this point in time. I'll do some more digging and see what I can find. Is the director particularly notable? Can we make an article based upon the director and redirect there? Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:15, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm finding so far is that he was a representative that held a viewpoint many saw and still see as strange. Many of the sources report more on the viewpoint and I'd hesitate with using some of these because they tend to play the Communist claims up for laughs rather than reporting on them in a more neutral manner. In other words, many of these read like blogs rather than news reports, so it's questionable what if any of these can be used.[5], [6], [7], [8] Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:25, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That coverage all appears to be local, too. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:24, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not to point fingers and make a mountain out of a mole hill but given that the same user requested it for deletion twice within 2 days rather than giving it more time for addressing the issues. When the article creator tried to discuss the page here the user who put it up for deletion appeared to ignored it. It seems a bit premature to bring this up again. Whilst I agree the article has some issues and does need to be addressed, it should be worked on and not blanket deleted. Wikipedia has a duty to be encyclopaedic and ensure that the little films, as well as the big films, have their voices heard. Not saying that every Tom, Dick or Harry who makes a film as a part of an academic course should get a page, but this is clearly not one of those scenarios. MisterShiney ✉ 08:08, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why should I give it more time? Why is this premature? Going from prod straight to AFD is a perfectly natural course if I failed to find sources. I loathe the "give it time" argument. Do you really think sources will spring up from nowhere in X amount of days? Sources don't appear out of thin air, you know. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:24, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because the point is, you PROPOSED it. It was rejected as per WP:PRD at which point, and I quote "If anybody objects to the deletion (usually by removing the proposed deletion tag), the proposal is aborted and may not be re-proposed." and you were obviously not happy with it so you then run over to the AFD page to try and get it deleted it through another route less than 2 days later. You haven't even tried to discuss changing the article with the editors involved or even gone over to the article talk page to discuss properly why you proposed ther deletion in the first place! Maybe they won't pop up in a few days, which is stands to reason why it should remain until such a time that it gains credibility. You might be chatting in a coffee shop one day and someone mentions this film that you should watch. Where are you going to go for more info? HERE! But oh you can't because someone decided that because it wasn't "Notable" enough it shouldnt be here. We are in a VIRTUAL space. There is no limit on what we can include! We are an ENCYCLOPEDIA - a central deposit of information that quite frankly isn't available elsewhere. Whilst I do not disagree that this article needs work, it should not be deleted on the grounds that a google search doesn't provide much information, and I repeat previous question of what the heck has google books got to do with anything...? MisterShiney ✉ 00:40, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is the path I think this article should face. Individuals are attempting to sort out the issues concerning this article so this AfD discussion is thorough. By the way, I originally wrote this article and appreciate it having a day in court. Bill Pollard (talk) 08:23, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I checked with my Highbeam account, and find mention of a Tea Party group showing the film, and various announcements of it being shown for free but asking for a donation. No real coverage on what it is though. Dream Focus 09:52, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm getting basically the same result. The sources currently used do not appear to be reliable by WP standards,. Although the North review is a very well-written critique from someone who does seem to be an expert on this type of subject it is posted on what appears to be his own website. The other sources used are from sites that actually take seriously the premise that the United States is about to be taken over by communists, so I think it is safe to say they are not sites with tight fact-checking and editorial oversight. There's not much else out there except for announcements that the film is being shown in one place or another. Delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:31, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete for failing WP:NF. Okay... though I often fight for the underdog, I'll be first to agree with TPH. As a documentary now-nearly-3-years-since-release, it has not received the requisite coverage in mainstream reliable sources. Yes, we can find reviews in non-reliable or (some) "right wing" media such as Religion Dispatches Free Republic Dangerous Minds Squidoo Chick Publications Gary North Generation-Impact Indy Christian Review Steeple Media Religio Political Talk and others... these, no matter how inciteful some may be, do not amount to the independent reliable sources Wikipedia requires. If someone finds The New York Times covering the topic, I can reverse myself. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:19, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep as per significant coverage. LenaLeonard (talk) 17:50, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing WP:NF, all the coverage comes from non-independent or unreliable sources. Cavarrone (talk) 11:20, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's incredibly questionable that this film is notable at any level, most i can tell is that it's a very small film, limited release and the only coverage it's getting comes from unreliable (and dare I say entirely non-neutral) sources. Fails WP:NFILM for lack of wide coverage even after some years from release. tutterMouse (talk) 16:32, 26 March 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. J04n(talk page) 10:46, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony J. Fulton

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

A BLP on a new actor who doesn't seem to meet our notability criteria and the sourcing is poor Msrasnw (talk) 17:07, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Msrasnw (talk) 17:27, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - seems to lack coverage for meeting WP:GNG; roles to date do not satisfy WP:ENT. Gong show 19:32, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - the actor is un-notable and has admited to creating the article himself on the article's talk page. On his facebook page (http://www.facebook.com/jamie.maclean.1995) he states he has created the page in the hope that it will 'get [him] more work'. Clearly created only for promo purposes and should be removed. Oddbodz (talk) 18:39, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is possible the author was unaware and might well rather we delete this. Should it be speedied?(Msrasnw (talk) 18:43, 27 March 2013 (UTC))[reply]

I personally think a speedy would be the best solution. Oddbodz (talk) 19:11, 27 March 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. Spinning Spark 12:39, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum Foundation

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

Delete per WP:ORGDEPTH. In 2007 someone announced that a fantastic sum of money would establish a foundation. Since that time, their website has hardly been updated and still talks in future tense ("The Foundation will...") and no third party media source seems to report on any Foundation activities. This article was made in 2009 after the foundation had been in existence two years. More years have passed. There are no sources describing activities of this group. Delete this article and recreate it if the foundation gets back in the news. This organization does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:02, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, agree with the nominator.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:44, 6 March 2013 (UTC) On hold, pending my new search for sources.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:28, 18 March 2013 (UTC) Changing to weak keep, see below.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:12, 18 March 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, Courcelles 00:37, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by METOKNOWONLY (talk • contribs) 02:40, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems a little silly to delete the sixth-largest charitable foundation in the world just because English news sources aren't covering it. Further, English news is available. Plus, the homepage is updated: right on the landing homepage is the announcement for its upcoming Arab Strategy Forum on 26-27 March 2013, the Twitter feed appears very active (altho, of course, in Arabic); it offered scholarships to attend IMD in Switzerland and London School of Economics mentions it; in 2012 it funded 30,000 books for kids in Gaza, and funded an Arab Knowledge Report with the United Nations. I hope one of the hasty delete !voters will find the time in their schedule to add sources to the article. II | (t - c) 23:57, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is strange, I did seacrh for recent sources (in English, obviously), and nothing reasonable came out. I will give it a second try later today.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:28, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the sources you provided, II, and I do not feel that any of them meet WP:RS. Some things on the website may have been updated but overall, it seems likely to me that the foundation is not employing a full-time webmaster because many parts of it are years out of date or have not been touched since it was made. I find that strange that one of the world's largest charities would be doing newsworthy things and getting no response. I would be happy if Arabic sources were being cited but you can check Arabic Wikipedia on this also - there are no sources cited there either. I checked the Twitter feed and found no links to sources. Schedules have nothing to do with this; I am not seeing sources worth citing. Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:51, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read WP:NONPROFIT? All that is required is that we have third-party reliable sources on its program activities, which we do. I find it hard to believe that the United Nations, London School of Economics or IMD, one of the top business schools, are not reliable. So you do you read Arabic? I do not. I did run through the Twitter feed with a translator and it is mainly about the strategy forum, although there's a Feb article linked further back. There's a discussion of a press conference for the strategy forum. But it's not surprising at all that there's little coverage. Most Members of the National Academies have no third-party articles about them, same with most top scientific journals, and yes, the same goes to many sizeable foundations in the United States which give out tens of millions of dollars. That's why there are certain exceptions in the subject-specific guidelines: because serious topics often don't attract serious attention. You need to understand that by spending some time reviewing the subject-specific guidelines and spending some time in the area you're tackling. We could have almost no articles for foundations with a very high bar; Wikipedia would just be about celebrities and stuff most people already know about it. II | (t - c) 15:34, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with your interpretation of WP:NONPROFIT. That guideline requests that "Information about the organization and its activities can be verified by multiple, third-party, independent, reliable sources", and I do not believe that such information has been identified. In particular, no one has identified any third-party source about the foundation, even though there are some sources about other things which mention the foundation.

We have sources which say that a conference, a university seat, and a paper distributed by the UN were sponsored at least in part by the foundation. Co-sponsoring a conference is not indication of notability; the conference itself is not notable and even if it was, notability is not WP:INHERITED from marginal connection to something else. The same is true for sponsoring the university seat. The sources mentioning those are reliable sources for information about the conference and the university seat but not about the foundation, because those sources are not about the foundation. The UN paper may or may not be a reliable source; just because someone gets funding from the UN or a foundation does not mean that they are speaking on behalf of either. This is grey literature, self-published, and perhaps distributed by the UN as the UN often does distribute thing., Irrespective of what this is, it has nothing to do with the notability of the foundation because it is not about the foundation.

No sources have been identified about this foundation. The foundation may publish or sponsor things being written on other topics or perhaps somewhere on itself. I do not read Arabic but I will confirm that neither Arabic Wikipedia nor their Arabic Twitter feed seem to link to any articles about the foundation. I cannot read the Albayan source in Arabic but it is only a paragraph and in a blog-format, and I suspect it may not be a reliable source about the foundation. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:55, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I added a few more, including another article on the founding (about) by Aljazeera (in addition to the original BBC article), plus a couple clearly independent sources on its activities. I really don't understand what motivates you to try to delete an article on a very large and significant organization such as this, especially when it is a foreign language situation and you haven't run an Arabic language search. I suspect your latest response is derived mostly from the natural tendency of people to dig in their heels and stick to their original view, which is why I note on my talkpage the following quote: "To change your mind and to follow him who sets you right is to be nonetheless the free agent that you were before". What purpose does it serve to try to delete something which is so significant that it will likely be recreated in a year at most? Isn't that kind of a waste of time? Why not go after one of the any number of articles on obscure pop-culture articles or sports players? II | (t - c) 02:41, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to talk about my personal views then come to my talk page. This organization has existed for 6 years and that is enough time for it to do something, if it has activity. I actually doubt that this organization even exists. I think it was an idea which fell through because I cannot imagine how it is possible to found an organization which has as its mission the goal to seek international attention for a region and then fail entirely to appear in media on the Internet. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:28, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or merge into Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum. Apart from a few sources from around the time the organisation was set up (which as pointed out in the nomination aren't terribly convincing) and trivial mentions such as this one, the available sources appear to consist of press releases and content from the websites of organisations funded by the subject. Such sources are not independent of the subject. WP:NONPROFIT doesn't affect this, as it also demands that independent sources be available. Hut 8.5 17:24, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Now weak keep. I searched differently from the last time (Google sucks), and was able to found three sources which tell something about some foundation activities (added them to the article). Whereas they seem to be reliable, they are both from Dubai, and I am not sure they are such independent, but at least there is some coverage above press-releases and the foundation website (both Zawia articles contain a press-release at the bottom, but my understanding is that a genuine article is followed by a press-release, not that the whole thing is a press-release).--Ymblanter (talk) 22:12, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I added a few more. WAM is a newswire and should be fine; Al-Qabas is a notable Kuwaitii newspaper; and Aljazeera covered the founding for two sources on that end. Vastly more you'd find on most private foundations, which really should have some sort of notability presumption at a certain asset-level test, similar to the guideline on WP:ACADEMIC. II | (t - c) 02:41, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Emirates News Agency is a branch of the Ministry of Culture [9]. Since the founder of the subject is the prime minister of the UAE (and absolute monarch of Dubai) this is a government mouthpiece reporting on the activities of a very prominent member of the government - not exactly independent. [10] and [11] do seem to be press releases in their entirety - apart from the bit saying "Press Release" at the bottom they are also tagged as press releases at the top, and are filed in a category of press releases (see the bit at the top to the right of the title). Hut 8.5 09:44, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you are right, they indeed seem to be press-releases.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:13, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Added a couple more clearly independent sources. WAM is like Xinhua. I think we might be inserting our cultural biases a little bit here. It's not ideal, and if there was something particularly dubious or self-serving, best not used. But for these purposes it seems independent enough, and I suspect that journalism in the Arab world is not the same as here. The old saying is that "news is what people don't want you to know, everything else is publicity". Unsurprisingly, this foundation has not yet made news. It shouldn't be punished for it. II | (t - c) 20:49, 19 March 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, ‑Scottywong | converse _ 17:00, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting rationale - Looking for comments on the quality of the sources that were recently added to the article. ‑Scottywong | chatter _ 17:02, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do not feel that these new sources establish the subject's notability due to their either not meeting WP:RS or not containing the sort of information which would establish notability. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:51, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There are some sources from the Google search (GB and GS) above which seem like they might be OK and with the other sources convince me that notability is verifiable in reliable sources.

Mohamed, Mirghani S., Kevin J. O'Sullivan, and Vincent Ribiere. (2008) "A paradigm shift in the Arab region knowledge evolution." Journal of Knowledge Management 12.5 107-120.

This includes At the latest Middle East World Economic Forum, held in Jordan in May 2007, Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, Vice President and Prime Minister of the UAE and Ruler of Dubai, launched an endowment of ten billion US dollars for an avant garde foundation called the ‘‘Mohammed Bin Rashid Al Maktoum Foundation’’ to promote knowledge in the region. Although the effort is not the first of its kind, it is nonetheless the largest contribution to the enterprise of knowledge in the region’s known history.

Pagliani, Paola. (2010) "Influence of regional, national and sub-national HDRs." Human Development Research Paper 19.

Pagliani argues:

The 2003 Arab Human Development Report, Building Knowledge Societies, for example, was well received in the Arab countries and prompted Mohammed Bin Rashid Al Maktoum, Vice President of the United Arab Emirates and Ruler of Dubai to launch a $10bn foundation for the betterment of knowledge in the Arab Countries. and The mission statement of the Mohammed Bin Rashid Al Maktoum Foundation reflects to a great extent the recommendations of the 2003AHDR. Moreover, in 2007 the UNDP Regional Bureau for Arab States agreed to partner with the foundation to support the production and develop capacity for the production of a series of Arab Knowledge Reports (AKR), following a similar methodology to that of a UNDPsponsored Human Development Report. The first AKR, Toward Productive Intercommunication for Knowledge12, was launched as the flagship publication of the 2009 Arab Strategy Forum, a high-level policy dialogue among policy-makers, private sector representatives, and opinion leaders from throughout the region and around the world, held in Dubai in October 2009,13 In addition to the AKR process representing a strong endorsement of the relevance of UNDP HDRs, and a sign of UNDP’s role in developing analytical and advocacy capacity in external organizations, it also pointed to a possible niche for UNDP in NCC countries – that of partnering on high-quality, strategic analysis that responds to country demand and is energetically endorsed by the highest levels of government. after which it was extensively covered in the regional media.

Smith, Kimberly.(2001) "United Arab Emirates statistical reporting to the oecd Development Assistance committee."

This mentions Five major foundations in the UAE have been established to grant funds made available as a result of decisions by the Rulers of the Emirates of Abu Dhabi and Dubai. and the Al Maktoum Foundation is listed there.

Cagney,Penelope and Bernard Ross (2013) Global Fundraising: How the World is Changing the Rules of Philanthropy, John Wiley & Sons

This is visible on GB and Amazon and Chapter 10 has three paras on the foundation. (Msrasnw (talk) 18:47, 21 March 2013 (UTC))[reply]

I was not able to find the text on Amazon or GB, but by the information you gave the other sources all say the same thing - in 2007, 10 billion dollars went into a foundation. That is just one event, and I would like to see sources accounting for some activity since then. I am looking for something more than an isolated, minor, sponsorship mention. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:25, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, you are not up to date with the article. There has certainly been activity since then, for example here. Thincat (talk) 20:01, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I suppose, but this is an interesting situation and discussion. I have linked from other WP articles and added some references but these are still press-release-like and refer to MBRF activities rather than to its importance. I take the WP:NONPROFIT guideline to mean that independent reliable sources are required but that in-depth discussion is not essential (usually). With the references now provided, and with those above, this bar has been crossed. The foundation certainly exists though it does seem rather nebulous – the surprising lack of in-depth coverage may well be due to cultural bias. Editorially, there is a case to merge with the Sheikh Mohammed parent article (and certainly not to delete). However, I do not like mandating a merge at AfD because a redirect without merge can all too easily result. BTW a stubby article about a United Nations Secretariat Office was recently kept[12] although it had a dearth of "notability references". I think it was regarded as inherently notable and in my view that applies in the present case too. Thincat (talk) 20:01, 21 March 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). (non-admin closure) JFHJr (㊟) 16:26, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

South Carolina Research Authority

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

This state-created organization fails both WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. I removed lots of cites to junk political blogs, including the one run by this organization, The Nerve. Very little exists as far as substantial coverage of the group, ignoring the massive amount of unreliable coverage that exists only among dot-orgs, coverage by the SC legislature (a related party that publishes legally required reviews of the SCRA), and lots of passing mention in stories about lots of other subjects. Here's the best coverage I found. JFHJr (㊟) 15:20, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I see an article in need of improvement here, not deletion. A state agency would have a pretty high likelihood of notability to start with, and there's hundreds of hits at GNews and HighBeam. Many of these are press releases but many more are from reliable sources, and they show coverage of this agency's formation [13][14], an early constitutional challenge to its authority [15], assorted activities [16][17][18], public controversy over salaries [19], and more. This 2006 newspaper article [20] or [21], for example, is extensive and informative. I'd also note that while a source related to the agency would not help to establish notability, it may be used per WP:SELFPUB to verify noncontroversial facts about the agency. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:53, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Articles found by Arxiloxos establish notability very well. Note that agency was created in 1983, so much coverage of its origin would be in print sources that aren't available online. Ammodramus (talk) 02:05, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In addition to the excellent sources Arxiloxos found, I see significant coverage in books, such as Legal Aspects of Doing Business in North America, The dynamics of technology-based economic development state science and technology indicators, National Regulation of Space Activities, and National Institute of Standards and Technology Special Publication - Issue 967. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:46, 24 March 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. J04n(talk page) 10:55, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

JACON

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

Extremely limited coverage by reliable and independent sources. Anime News Network is only press releases, Orlando Sentinel is actually an interview with Tara Strong, and about.com does not appear to be an reliable source. Esw01407 (talk) 15:08, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete entirely self-referenced, and there just plain doesn't seem to have been much of anything to say about it anyway. It's also defunct, and while that itself isn't a reason for deletion it does mean it's unlikely that there will be any future notability (or future verifiability). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:10, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Contested Prod with the removal comment being: "Removed prod - seems like plenty of RS news coverage in Google News Archives; it just isn't in this article", okay great if you found sources then include them, I for one am more than happy to remove Prods, I have seen editors look for sources (myself included) though with nothing turning up. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:40, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems to fail WP:NEVENT. The article lacks coverage by reliable sources. Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 21:47, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - About.com isn't a reliable source? Anyway, there's a lack of reliable coverage, so this isn't notable. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 06:35, 23 March 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. Keeper | 76 15:26, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vishal Oberoi

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

Self-promotion by an actor of dubious notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:36, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability. Sources are either self published or unreliable. The lone reliable source (ToI) does not even mention his name. Salih (talk) 17:20, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Even if it was notable—which it is not—it was created by someone who is presumably (due to username) the subject. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 01:40, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Immediate Delete - Clear case of self-promotion. And don't think it passes WP:NOT 106.51.91.168 (talk) 09:17, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#A7 no claim of significance or importance. JohnCD (talk) 16:40, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Page Funeral Home

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

Not notable company or organization. Fails WP:GNG ...William 14:20, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions....William 14:23, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions....William 14:23, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete; I don't see a claim of minimal significance here: tagging. They are a funeral home. They do funerals and cremations. Some time ago they bought a facility with regulatory issues that have been resolved. Nothing here gets them into an encyclopedia. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:18, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:26, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

James-J Walsh

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

Doesn't Meet Notability - some notable events but Wikipedia:NOTINHERITED. Appears to be Self-Authored. DavidTTTaylor (talk) 14:39, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It seems that most of the sources are related to the group he is a part of, and not the subject himself. Ducknish (talk) 15:15, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTINHERITED, WP:CONFLICT — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.19.194.145 (talk) 16:00, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable for WP:BIO currently. Soruces relate to org not person. 149.6.184.50 (talk) 16:49, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Cameron11598 (Converse) 16:58, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Cameron11598 (Converse) 16:58, 13 March 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) 13:56, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relist rationale: the creator of the page in question was never notified of this discussion. J04n(talk page) 13:57, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Apologies. In error I didn't extend that courtesy. My original nomination stands DavidTTTaylor (talk) 14:26, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete. Unfortunately the reason of vote #2 is wrong WP:NOTINHERITED is fundamentally flawed, however with regard to the events he's connected with, the connection is not strong enough and the events are not notable enough in themselves to mean that he would inherit notability by association with them (this is how the real world works). Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:49, 21 March 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.

Alex Eckelberry

The result was delete. The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was Snow keep. Close requested by nom (non-admin closure). IRWolfie- (talk) 22:06, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Catholic Diocese of Ardagh and Clonmacnoise

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

Looks copyvio from [22] The Banner talk 12:52, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Rather than totally deleting the article, just remove the copyvio info. Scrivener-uki (talk) 13:01, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Per above. This problem is solved by removing the copied material, not deleting the article. WilliamH (talk) 13:29, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. AfDs are for challenging the notability of articles. Roman Catholic dioceses have long been held to be notable. If there's a copyvio then simply remove it, but there's no reason to delete the article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:46, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep. "Copyright violation" by itself is only a valid rationale for deletion if removing the infringing text leaves the article empty and there is no non-infringing version to revert to. In this case, the copyright violation has been removed, and there is plenty of non-infringing article text left over. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 18:08, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Copyvio is not a reason to AfD, just Remove the material in question. Snappy (talk) 19:22, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

REQUESTED SPEEDY CLOSE AS KEEP It was doubting if it was copyvio at all, that is why I have chosen this way. But the case is solved now, so I request speedy closure as keep. The Banner talk 21:29, 21 March 2013 (UTC) But take a look at Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Tuam too.. [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 A7 by Euryalus (A7: Article about a band, singer, musician, or musical ensemble, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject). Housekeeping closure. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:58, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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. J04n(talk page) 18:51, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sotaro Tojima

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

Notability. Ref 1 is a directory. Ref 2 is an interview (good for notability). Ref 3 is an interview, but not about him, it's about a game he worked on.

He hasn't received significant coverage in reliable sources. I was the one who added the references after trying to expand the article. James086 ^Talk 18:36, 6 March 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) 18:49, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:22, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Cited sources are about things he's worked on not him and are Wikipedia:NOT INHERITED. Not notable under WP:BIO DavidTTTaylor (talk) 17:18, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I searched for Japanese sources and found a few. First, the Wikipedia JP article cites this English source that is not included in the English one. For sources in Japanese, I found this rather detailed interview in which he talks a lot about himself beyond Halo. The same site, Famitsu.com (which is related to Famitsu I believe) has other articles that mention him, but this one, about a lecture he gave about his work, is the most detailed of the rest. This report on Halo 4 includes a longish interview with Tojima that includes information on his background. This is report on the same event, with a sidebar on Tojima, but since it is from xbox.com, it might not be seen as independent. Right now, I am borderline, leaning keep, but since I don't know game sites, I can't say how reliable all these are. Michitaro (talk) 00:38, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The first Famitsu article is good for asserting notability (whether one article constitutes "significant coverage" is another matter), the second is just about a game he worked on. Famitsu is definitely a reliable source for video game articles. Gamasutra is also reliable, but they are just paraphrasing a press release by his employer. The Japanese xbox.com page and the Game Watch interview are just about the game he worked on. Thanks for those, I find it hard enough to read Japanese articles even once they have been translated (hopefully one day the automatic translators will be perfect). James086^Talk 17:37, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for the evaluations. I did, however, find the second Famitsu piece to be about more than just the game he worked on. It is a report on his lecture at a university conference on game design, where he uses one game as his main example, but generally talks about his approach to sound design. There were several other Famitsu articles that mention him which I did not introduce because they were really just about the games. This one was different. Michitaro (talk) 17:50, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Haha, it seems that the meaning of the second article was quite literally lost in translation. James086 ^Talk 18:07, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 09:17, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Two sources do not constitute sufficient reliable sources for a whole article, there needs to be evidence of more or it should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:40, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A reasonable search for sources brings up nothing directly detailing the subject himself. Current page lacks sufficient reliable sources to justify a keep outcome. Would have no problem with restoration or userfication if adequate sources about the subject were found. BusterD (talk) 16:33, 28 March 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. J04n(talk page) 11:08, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

4 Pics 1 Word

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

Non-notable app/game. DMacks (talk) 07:42, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as spam. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:32, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reads more like a press release than an article. I was not able to find adequate references which would satisfy the subject's inclusion per the notability criteria for software. WilliamH (talk) 13:32, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Whether the article may or may not need rewriting is irrelevant, fact is, this is a notable app. [23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30] - there's enough reliable sources within there for this to be notable. WP:BEFORE not followed properly. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:46, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If I had strictly followed deletion policy, I would have speedied it as spam myself (luckily A7 doesn't apply to non-web software too). I've been criticized in the past for taking that approach for not at least giving others with knowledge the chance to redo it from scratch, which is what it needs--it is hopeless in its current form. DMacks (talk) 15:41, 21 March 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) 16:41, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've nuked the promotional bullshit. Now we can have a valid article. Really wasn't hard... Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:25, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Since the nomination, Lukeno94 did an excellent job of rewriting the article almost from scratch. All the earlier promotional material is now gone and what's left is a good start-class article with reviews in reliable sources such as PC Advisor, WhatMobile, and Inside Social Games. The game seems to pass notability guidelines per WP:GNG and spam is not longer an issue, which suggests that this article be kept. --Mark viking (talk) 22:50, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Lukeno's source hunting and rewrite. Sergecross73 msg me 16:19, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Lukeno managed to salvage the article, and the nom no longer applies. Ducknish (talk) 17:31, 23 March 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. J04n(talk page) 11:10, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shadow casting

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

The article appears to have been created for the sole purpose of self serving promotion of non notable "shadow casts" of various midnight movies. The subject itself seems to be less than notable as there appears to be little to no reliable sources but the single mention in a single source. I have trimmed the article back to the relevant content that appears to be sourced but feel there is little to nothing to build on and this would likely become a spamfest of listing your local Rocky Horror group.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:17, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator per above. Any relevant content can be merged to Audience#Audience participation--Amadscientist (talk) 07:38, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to The Rocky Horror Picture Show cult following, where it's already covered better, though that article looks like it too could use a trim. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:39, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest speedy deletion at this point. I am almost sure the source does not refer to "shadow cast". The book was written in 1980/81 and the term does not seem to have appeared in the fan base until the mid to late 1990s. And even then it has such a limited use I don't think it is encyclopedic.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:41, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's only refering to this one specific instance. It's not a general concept and it's not covered outside of this one instance. Ducknish (talk) 17:36, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is a form of entertainment where the performer acts or dances behind a screen and lighting is used to cast a large shadow on the screen which is the only thing the audience sees but it has nothing to do with this article or its assertions. MarnetteD | Talk 17:53, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I was going to mention this. The article is named incorrectly. The term here should just be "Shadow cast". Shadow casting has a number of actual references and is an old entertainment form dating back for thousands of years...perhaps all the way back to the discovery of fire.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:03, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I may have been to quick to request speedy delete from just the first two !votes, but now I believe we may have enough to do so. Of course...I may still be wrong.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:05, 26 March 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. Jenks24 (talk) 14:03, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Bulldog

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

Not a notable establishment, one of many such. Promotional article based on own web site with support from passing mention in a couple of newspaper stories Mandrake turn (talk) 06:33, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes WP:CORPDEPTH. Source examples include: [31], [32], [33], [34], [35] (shorter), [36] (short). Mentions include: [37], [38], [39], [40]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:30, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The first 5 sources cited by Northamerica 1000 more than satisfy WP:GNG, significant coverage by non-local reliable sources independant of the subject. J04n(talk page) 11:14, 28 March 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 23:58, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Meta-epistemology

AfDs for this article:

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

Procedural nomination on behalf of Snowded (talk · contribs), who did not follow correct procedure for a second nomination. Rationale is as follows:

Unreferenced and written as an essay. Previous discussion has a majority of editors for either deletion or merger. Lacks direct sourcing for the term.

Delete or Merge per nomination ----Snowded ^TALK 22:34, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For my part, I am neutral. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 03:51, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:ESSAY. Actually it seems also to be in part not much more than notes for an essay, with a logic that isn't easy to follow. There is a list of references, but without footnotes it is impossible to tell whether the opinions are the author's (WP:OR) or could possibly be traced, but the style suggests it's the author's point of view. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:35, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Save: Although there is reason to complain about the article's present condition, the absence of in-line citations does not appear to mean that none can be found. The search keys at the top of this page produce, among other things this listing which identifies half a dozen scholarly texts with 'meta-epistemology' in their titles and a few thousand other books where meta-epistemology is raised as part of discussion. So the issue is not that meta-epistemology is a dismissible topic but that some work is needed on this article. Many sub-disciplines of philosophy have their own branch of 'metaphilosophy', examples being Meta-aesthetics, Meta-epistemology, Meta-ethics, Meta-ontology, and so forth. According to:Robert S Hartman (1995). "Axiology as a science". In Rem B. Edwards (ed.). Formal Axiology and Its Critics. Rodopi. p. 21. ISBN 9051839103. As there is a scientific ethics as a metaethics for traditional ethics, so there are — and ought to be — meta-aesthetics, meta-metaphysics, meta-epistemology, and other scientific meta-disciplines which analyze and interrelate the corresponding philosophical disciplines....

The present article provides a basis for further development that should not be cavalierly erased. There is no argument so far that it is misleading or incorrect in its details. The article was largely formulated by User:Tegiap, and I have placed a notification of this requested deletion on User talk:Tegiap. Brews ohare (talk) 14:12, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A merge with epistemology was discussed for years on Talk:Epistemology and seems to have been decided to leave things as they were. These participants have not been notified of the present effort to delete this article. Brews ohare (talk) 14:25, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The first deletion discussion can be found here. Brews ohare (talk) 14:36, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There are two issues here: (1) the inherent notability of the topic, and (2) the current state of the article. Regarding (1), the subject is a notable topic of academic discourse. For example, it is the subject of an entry in The Blackwell Dictionary of Western Philosophy [41], is the subject of several academic papers (Google scholar query) and is discussed in a number of books as previously pointed out. The topic satisfies WP:GNG. Regarding (2), I agree the article is in poor shape, but this is a WP:SURMOUNTABLE problem that can be fixed through dedicated editing. The existence of a substantial body of academic literature on this topic gives the article WP:POTENTIAL - and the "deletion of articles with potential should be avoided". --Mike Agricola (talk) 16:36, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, it's all yours. Have fun editing it... Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:02, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A need for cleanup does not justify deletion. The sources are there, the information is there, someone needs to put in the work, but it meets criteria to be kept. Ducknish (talk) 17:49, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. (Lots of) Ordinary editing will bring this page to satisfactory state. As pointed out above, this topic is a subject of papers and books sufficient to meet GNG. BusterD (talk) 16:29, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement) by INeverCry (talk · contribs)

Alternative Approaches to the Delimitation of the Arctic Continental Shelf

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

Declined PROD - prod tag was removed by IP without explanation or improvements to the article. PROD rationale was "Original research. This appears to be a lawyer's brief on possible solutions to a perceived problem. May or may not make any sense (I'm not a lawyer) but it is most certainly a original research or synthesis." I agree - delete as original research/original synth. Dawn Bard (talk) 03:16, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Original research. Nice legal brief, but this isn't the place for it.WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 03:20, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do whatever you want. Delete it or do not delete it. Satisfy yourself please. I have spent my time to bring this rare info to specific public and now you propose to delete this encyclopaedic information. Yes, I understand you love get here articles to advertise and promote people, products and services. My article is not like this, this is very detailed information on the rare subject. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.65.107.126 (talk) 03:36, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can understand that the author feels discouraged but there is already an article on this at Territorial claims in the Arctic and it would be inappropriate to have another here - see WP:FORK for the policy on that. There are more articles on specific aspects of the topic. In addition, there are a number of other difficulties with the present article to do with the style which does not follow Wikipedia standards and can be difficult for users to follow, and because Wikipedia articles should not attempt to set out an individual's analysis and understanding of the issue but summarise from a neutral point of view using appropriate references as the Territorial claims in the Arctic and others articles seek to do. I suggest that the author looks at those related articles - there may be ways in which he or she thinks they might be improved and with his or her knowledge of the topic such a contribution would doubtless be useful. --AJHingston (talk) 10:43, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fork (for the avoidance of doubt). NB Arctic shelf currently redirects inappropriately to Arctic policy of Russia. This needs putting right, but I am not sure of the best target. --AJHingston (talk) 10:43, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Territorial claims in the Arctic, preserving history, and merging any material which is appropriate (WP:SMERGE). Although this title is not really a likely search term it would be helpful to preserve the material's history somewhere. This is very unfortunate for the present article and for the person who has put in so much knowledge and care but this article does indeed seem to be what Wikipedia calls "original research". I agree with AJHingston's other comments and that the editor would perhaps most usefully contribute to existing related articles. (BTW I have tried to resolve the Arctic shelf situation as best I can). Thincat (talk) 12:29, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Original Research. Also, is this a copyvio of http://tbplaw.com/data/ielr_2008-4.pdf ? I don't seem to be able to open this document in my browser, but it has the same title as the wikipedia article. If it is a copyvio then we shouldn't be trying to preserve it. Dingo1729 (talk) 17:38, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I managed to open the link eventually. It's a simple copyvio. Clearly a Delete. Dingo1729 (talk) 17:45, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A copyright violation is a speedy delete, and I've tagged it as such now. Good catch, Dingo1729! Dawn Bard (talk) 17:51, 21 March 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. J04n(talk page) 11:17, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

VEO

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

Poorly referenced, original research article about what I assume is a non-notable marketing phrase. Unable to find any reliable sources on Google News, Google Books and HighBeam. I redirected the article to Video advertising but the article creator has repeated reverted without any explanation. - Mr X 03:16, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. 15:28, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:28, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: sales patter, spam, and borderline patent nonsense: ...the process of maximizing viewer engagement within an interactive video (the digital asset). The objective of VEO is to maximize the insight and monetization of video assets while minimizing waste by making any perceivable object or sound inside the video interactive and engage-able. By making the entire video asset interactive and any object or sound within the video a data-point, content owners experience a much higher probability that viewers will specify and engage exactly what interests them. The result is greatly increased rates of conversion, virality and data-capture with correspondingly lower bounce rates and page abandonment. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:28, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a corporate buzzword neologism. Or at least I think so, the article is written in incomprehensible marketing semi-nonsense to the point that it almost reads like parody, and may as well be for a type of cheese sandwich for all the clarity of the text. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:20, 21 March 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. J04n(talk page) 11:18, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Njoroge Gicheha

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

Candidate in Kenyan election, but it's at the county level rather than national and he doesn't appear to have done anything notable otherwise. Le Deluge (talk) 14:01, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:05, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 7 March 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, Automatic Strikeout (T • C) 03:08, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme (talk) 01:22, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. County-level candidates should be kept, in Kenya and in other countries. – SJ + 01:56, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a politician who hasn't won an election is, notability-wise, right up there with bands who haven't played a single gig and authors who haven't written anything yet. Of course, this could change if he wins, but we can't go on possible future notability. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:42, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Andrew Lenahan makes a good point; as far as I can tell there is no precedent for creating articles about county level political candidates. Beyond this, the article has no notable sources. One is a facebook page, which is a primary source at best, and the other is a press release, which does not qualify as significant coverage according to WP:GNG — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ben Knapp (talk • contribs) 23:00, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question Even if Gicheha were to win the election would he hold a notable post? That is not really clear to me.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:58, 28 March 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. Keep, per improvements to article and better referencing. While I agree with Tokyogirl79 that it popularity =/= notability, the new sourcing appears sufficient and reliable. Keeper | 76 16:59, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To This Day

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

mostly sourced to youtube. author has appeared on HLN. topic (the poem) has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. fails WP:GNG. Nathan Johnson (talk) 16:47, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme (talk) 01:10, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, expand GNG. – SJ + 01:57, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the GNG. Alternatively, redirect to Shane Koyczan. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:16, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Shane_Koyczan#To_This_Day. The issue here is that most of the coverage focuses more about Koyczan and the subject of bullying rather than the poem itself. Many of the sources I'm finding are of the "hey, this poem was released, go check it out" variety. It's a start, but not really enough to show that it's a real depth of coverage at this point in time. Completely deleting the article outright would be a little rash, as there's a very real potential for this to gain more coverage and in-depth analysis in the future. It's just not there yet and while it'd be nice to keep a poem about bullying that has received a little attention, this is just WP:TOOSOON for its own article. I've added a section into Koyczan's article about the poem and for now it can redirect there. Right now the poem is popular, but popularity doesn't equate to notability on Wikipedia. It just makes it easier to find sources and right now everything is just reporting on the existence of the poem without any real in-depth analysis. The ones that are giving this more of a look aren't really the types of places that Wikipedia would consider a RS, unfortunately. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:37, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. New detail and decent refs added. Span (talk) 10:39, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Current version bears no resemblance to version originally nominated. More than enough reliable sources have been presented to put this page past GNG. BusterD (talk) 16:24, 28 March 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. Fails WP:NFOOTBALL, and consensus seems to be that he also fails WP:GNG. Number 5 7 15:25, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Young (footballer)

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

Article about a player who has not played football at a professional level, references about whom only amount to routine coverage. C 679 18:33, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. C 679 18:35, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:42, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - fails WP:NFOOTBALL in the strict sense (league-wise), but has 300+ league appearances for one club, Telford,with the majority of these being games in a grey-area league. Also, [42] is not purely routine. He also passes WP:NFOOTBALL: [43] - game against a League 2 team, as were [44] and [45]. Lukeno94 (talk) 18:48, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Both teams must be from fully-pro leagues. These teams he played against were fully-pro but Telford are not. So he still fails NFOOTBALL. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 19:49, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere does it say that. He's played 3 professional matches, essentially, there - therefore he passes NFOOTBALL. Besides, NFOOTBALL should be being used to root out people whom have played like 10 games in their entire career, not a stalwart of a team like this. Lukeno94 (talk) 20:02, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NFOOTBALL says the two ways to qualify are by playing a senior international match, which he clearly fails, and playing in a fully professional league, which he also fails. Not sure how you think playing a cup match indicates NFOOTBALL being met. Further, the over-riding concern is whether he meets the general notability guideline, which would need to be established by multiple independent sources, another thing which has not been indicated. C 679 20:46, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The cup match thing comes from several AfDs in the past, that have based around cup matches. Lukeno94 (talk) 20:56, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So you're agreeing he doesn't meet NFOOTBALL after all? C 679 21:15, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To the best of my knowledge, no article has ever been kept at AfD on the sole basis of a player having played for a non-professional team against a professional team in the FA Cup. Feel free to prove me wrong, though........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:05, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm referencing a Japanese second-tier cup match, for which a guy's article was kept (can't remember for the life of me which it was, it was part of a whole host of super-stubs of Japanese players that got AfDed a few months back). I still hold that, even if he doesn't meet NFOOTBALL completely, having 300 league games for a team that plays in a grey-area league should be enough - NFOOTY failure deletions should only be for those whom have played a handful of games altogether. Lukeno94 (talk) 21:55, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And GNG failures should be for those who have not been the subject of significant coverage, like the one here. C 679 21:50, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Week delete - I think I remember the Japanese AfD Lukeno is talking about, but that was kept on the basis that he had played a cup-match between two teams from fully pro league. Normally I would keep players that have played a whole career in a semi-professional league, due to the coverage they've gotten, but I only found this and this in addition to the sources in the article, and that seems be a little short to pass the general notability guideline, so it should probably be deleted. Mentoz86 (talk) 13:18, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment [46][47]. Does that help a bit more towards GNG? They're reprints of other sources, but... Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:18, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme (talk) 01:08, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - If Young doesn't qualify per current standards, I think the standard should change. – SJ + 01:54, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can think of a great many articles that would disappear if I could rewrite the notability rules to suit my personal preference. Do you have any grounds to Keep based in Wikipedia's notability guidelines? Ravenswing 01:45, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Mentoz86. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:14, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have you not seen the second source I gave after Mentoz's comment? I'm pretty sure there are 2 reliable, non-local sources here to work with - enough for an article. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:55, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They are both reprints, the first one from shropshirestar.com (which is likely the local newspaper, as I found a couple of stories from that sites) and the second one is from the league website (which is not independent of the subject), so I don't think they get Young closer to passing GNG. Mentoz86 (talk) 17:46, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

VEry dubious -- I do not normally comment on Football, but he has merely played for local clubs, the highest beinbg the Confernece, which is the 5th level of leagues, where clubs are uaually only semi-professional. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:58, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment [48] - a 3rd piece that isn't totally trivial. The three things I've found, plus a multitude of local sources, should be enough to build an article on surely? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:24, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And this: [49] Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:28, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The first one is just a match-report, and doesn't help on GNG. The second one does help towards GNG, but I'm not convinced yet, even though I'm close. Mentoz86 (talk) 17:46, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[50] Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:02, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not a reliable source. Actually there appears to be a real absence of reliable sources covering this individual in significant detail despite your continued efforts to show otherwise. C 679 16:36, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[51] - there's 3 BBC things here now that aren't one-liners or purely trivial, but have a few paragraphs/sentences... which is enough for GNG. What I find totally absurd is that we would happily keep an article about a guy who played 10 games in League 2 and then disappeared, and yet a player whom has 300 games for one club, over 50 of which were in the Conference National, is looking like his article will be deleted... man, these NFOOTY guidelines are broken. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:29, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Three BBC things doesn't qualify as multiple sources, just a single source. So we still don't have enough for the GNG. C 679 22:26, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Eh? 3 completely separate pieces count as one? *scratches head* Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:29, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per the GNG, "Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability." C 679 10:49, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Looks like everyone is dead set on deletion, despite the fact this player is clearly going to be more notable than many players that are kept for meeting WP:NFOOTY... If 3 BBC pieces, several semi-reliable sources, aren't enough, well... There's another BBC piece that's about someone travelling just to see him play [52], and I found [53][54] as non-local (but not national) coverage. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:52, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Being "more notable" than other players on Wikipedia is irrelevant, the article here should be kept if it meets GNG, which it looks like it doesn't. Other "less notable" players may be nominated for deletion separately if they have not received significant coverage DESPITE meeting NFOOTBALL, and even be deleted, as has been established in other recent deletion discussions, e.g. Fearghus Bruce. C 679 14:54, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[55] is something else that isn't a national paper, but isn't purely local either. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:29, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Lukeno94's argument is entirely unpersuasive. The notion that playing a match against a fully professional team constitutes "playing professionally" is absurd: I could, with equal justification, claim that the members of the Northeastern University Huskies baseball team are notable because they play a match against the Boston Red Sox each spring. Ravenswing 01:45, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If Setanta still existed, then I could provide more sources on this guy; sadly, they don't, their website is offline (for all intents and purposes) and wayback machines are only useful when you actually know what to find. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:18, 26 March 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. J04n(talk page) 11:22, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Davide Cortina

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

No evidence subject meets WP:GNG or WP:NSPORTS. Has not been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources and hasn't played in a fully professional league. Hack (talk) 01:06, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:21, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage in reliable sources, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:21, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looking through some sources, does not appear subject passes WP:GNG. --LauraHale (talk) 02:13, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not sufficient sources to prove notability. Clearly fails WP:GNG--Ben Knapp (talk) 22:42, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly fails GNG & NFOOTBALL. Banana Fingers (talk) 08:50, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the article creator should be stopped. Creates bios left, right and center without much thought and completely ignores any advice or warnings. On top of that, the editor seems to have two accounts which he goes back and fourth with to create pages and whatever else; Amador Jover Veloz & Amador jover. Banana Fingers (talk) 08:50, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked the newer account. Giant Snowman 21:37, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NFOOTBALL. Ducknish (talk) 18:10, 23 March 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. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 21:00, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Schechter Day School Network

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

Unsourced shamelessly smarmy advertisement for group of elementary schools, complete with unsourced assertions that various somewhat notable living persons are alumni. Orange Mike | Talk 00:56, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The organization is clearly notable, as the largest network of Conservative Jewish schools in North America. The article won;t qualify for FA soon, but as it currently exists undoubtedly meets any standard of notability. The smarmy nomination appears to have been written by an editor who appears to have not performed even the most basic research of prospective notability or to have made any effort to address the issues, and sadly it's someone who should have known better. Alansohn (talk) 02:52, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't slag off on the nominator, please assume good faith. Nor is the nominator in any way obligated to "address" any deficiencies of the article. Carrite (talk) 16:56, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming that "slagging off" is intended negatively, I didn't slag anywhere near enough. WP:BEFORE could not be any clearer in under the heading "Search for additional sources, if the main concern is notability" that "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. If you find a lack of sources, you've completed basic due diligence before nominating.... If you find that adequate sources do appear to exist, the fact that they are not yet present in the article is not a proper basis for a nomination. Instead, you should consider citing the sources, using the advice in Wikipedia:How to cite sources, or at minimum apply an appropriate template to the page that flags the sourcing concern." We need to start slagging left and right at lazy editors who are slacking off at their obligations as prospective nominators are required to go slogging through a search to fins prospective sources to support notability. This nomination fails the most basic standard. Alansohn (talk) 18:54, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Carrite. Are you of the view that a wp:before search is required, before an AfD nomination?--Epeefleche (talk) 20:13, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I can appreciate that the content of this article as nominated had a promotional tone (as do many of our school-related articles), but that is a reason to fix the article, not delete it. This organization has been a major institution of Conservative Judaism since the 1950s, and more recently its uncertain future (as a number of Schechter-affilated schools have chosen to disaffiliate) has drawn considerable attention. Examples:

Here's an chapter about the organization's history and prospects in The Praeger Handbook of Faith-Based Schools in the United States, K-12 (ABC-CLIO, 2012) [56]. More prospective sources at GBooks[57] and GScholar [58] By the way, not that it necessarily belongs in this article, but Natalie Portman [59] and Mike Gordon [60] really did attend Schechter Schools. --Arxiloxos (talk) 03:21, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly qualifies for GNG, per the RS coverage found doing a web search. (BTW .. has wp:BEFORE died?; I missed the obit). Needs cleanup, to be sure, but AfD is not for cleanup. This can even be snow kept after the next two or three keeps, if no new editors disagree; its that clear.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:58, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly is a notable group of institutions. Did not strike me as a partial article. Just because there is a lack of sources does not mean they should be deleted. --Ben Knapp (talk) 04:41, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:N. Current sources already prove notability, and there are many more. Yoninah (talk) 16:47, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per longstanding consensus that High Schools of verified existence are presumed notable: "By 1968, a high school in Brooklyn, New York was opened. Today there are approximately 50 Solomon Schechter Day Schools, including several high schools. " Carrite (talk) 16:49, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is actually more akin to a school district that includes high schools, incidentally — also inherently notable in my opinion. Carrite (talk) 16:54, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think an organisation of 50+ schools is pretty clearly notable, and the sources are there. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:43, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep - blatantly notable as per sources. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:54, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Snow makes sense (see my comment above).--Epeefleche (talk) 23:13, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notability has been proven and consensus is already clear at this point. Ducknish (talk) 18:19, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all of the above. It's obvious that this subject is both WP:N and WP:V. The nominator has been too rash as can be seen in his disrespectful language that this is a "...shamelessly smarmy advertisement for group [sic] of elementary schools..." So, while the article is not perfect and could use further WP:Wikification, there is no need to insult this important network of Jewish day schools and wipe it off the map since it is an encyclopedic topic relating to Jewish education. An easier first step would have been to start up some talk and solicit some views from WP:EXPERT editors at WP:TALKJUDAISM. At any rate, at times like this, always think of the advice offered at WP:DONOTDEMOLISH and at WP:CHANCE. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 10:18, 24 March 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.