Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 March 7

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log
< 6 March 8 March >

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 speedily deleted by User:Bbb23 under criterion WP:CSD#G12 (copyright infringement). (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dragan Petrovic jazz pianist

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

This is the third or fourth effort by User:Jazzycrazy to recreate this page without every answering community concerns about it. Chris troutman (talk) 23:33, 7 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 redirect to L.A. Reid, moderately plausible search term. Keeper | 76 01:43, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pure Essence

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

PROD was contested, but article cites no independent reliable sources and notability issue (tagged long since) has not been addressed. Reads as a directory entry, and most of the claims to significance rely on redlinked acts. Guy (Help!) 22:59, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The band is not notable - there are very few, if any, serious reviews available and no media coverage to speak of. Wikipeterproject (talk) 02:40, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It appears this group retooled and eventually morphed into The Deele. This is mentioned on the L.A. Reid page but not on the Deele page, so maybe some of this article's information can be incorporated there using sources like these [2][3][4]. (Edit: I see that the Deele's page does note that "Reid, Roberson, and Tucker were members of a previous Cincinnati-based band, Pure Essence and they later formed The Deele along with Bristol, Greene, and Burke" and there's no real need to merge anything there from the Essence article) A standalone article on Pure Essence does not seem warranted as I'm only seeing brief mentions within articles about Reid.  Gong show 22:21, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not knowledgeable on the subject, but I think you are mistaken. This suggests that L.A.Reid joined The Deele after he left Pure Essence. (Edit: It turns out that that source is most likely a copyvio of Wikipedia, as it appears to quote several Wikipedia articles without giving attribution). —gorgan_almighty (talk) 18:46, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's quite possible. BTW, and FWIW, that book appears to be made up entirely of Wikipedia articles. I was going mostly by this, which states that Essence "later became The Deele". In any event, since virtually all sources identified here mention (Pure) Essence only within articles that focus on Reid anyway, his page would be the more optimal target.  Gong show 20:12, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect to L.A. Reid. Appears to be a small-time band of which notable songwriter and record producer L.A.Reid was once a member. Of course notability is not inherited. Although there are many third-party sources that mention the band, the mentions are mostly in reference to L.A.Reid's past career and none of them cover the band in detail or as a primary subject. The band's entire contribution seems to be summed up in this statement: "[Pure Essence] released one solitary 45 in the middle 1970's as well as garnering an appearance on local rock radio station WEBN's annual LP compilation, this time as Essence" (Edit: Note that as stated above, that source is not valid, but the quote itself still seems to be true). Note that the L.A. Reid article is currently under-going a copyright violation investigation, so redirecting the article might not be appropriate until that issue is resolved (Edit: Issue now resolved). —gorgan_almighty (talk) 19:07, 10 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. Wizardman 19:07, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Zpocalypse

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

This board game project appears to fail WP:N. Google News archive only provides 2 articles. One provides significant coverage (see [5]), but it's user-submitted content and doesn't seem to qualify as a reliable source. Wired certainly has a reputation for editorial integrity, but user-submitted content on Wired seems inappropriate to use as sourcing in Wikipedia. The second article (also user-submitted on Wired) only has a passing mention: see [6]. Zero hits in Google Books. Northamerica1000(talk) 22:57, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Seems to be a typical Kickstarter project with reasonable interest but no real significant coverage to justify inclusion. Ducknish (talk) 01:42, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. The Wired article doesn't seem to be user-submitted content as far as I can tell and it's definitely significant coverage, but it's the only source I can find and we need at least two sources to establish notability. --Cerebellum (talk) 16:30, 14 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. Procedural closure (non-admin closure) TBrandley (review) 03:11, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

U.F.O. (song)

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

1 line lead, 2 line recording section, and a quote for critical reception. There's no point in this article existing, there's not more than 5 sentences and only 5 sources.  — AARON • TALK 22:32, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 8 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) 22:50, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Civil rights movement veterans

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

Contested PROD. This group/website doesn't seem to meet WP:ORG or WP:WEB. It would seem that the creator is also a member of the group, though that alone isn't necessarily a problem. --BDD (talk) 21:24, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. --BDD (talk) 21:25, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. --BDD (talk) 21:25, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete no sources at all. Thank you, MarioNovi (talk) 07:43, 10 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) 04:28, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Classical theism

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

There are no references provided to substantiate that this is not original research, or entirely fabricated. The concepts make sense, are rational, reasonable, but there is no indication as to when or from whom (neither deity nor person) that this concept originated.

While there are two references, both books, neither book is cited nor mentioned in the article itself. The reference section, which lists the books, does not specify the relevant chapter or page number or quote from either book; any of those would be supportive, probably adequate. The book titles don't indicate that they are about anything other than general theology. FeralOink (talk) 18:34, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, there are "citation needed" tags in the article that show it being tagged since 2008, yet no progress has been made in adding citations where it is indicated that they are needed. --FeralOink (talk) 18:52, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: "Classical theism" is not a neologism; it has a well-established usage as a Google Books search on the phrase demonstrates. Via Google Books, I encountered [7] which quotes the Christian philosopher Ronald H. Nash stating that "The older, traditional view [of God] is frequently referred to simply as theism, often as Christian theism, sometimes as classical theism, and occasionally as Thomistic theism." If "classical theism" is merely a synonym for Christian theism, a redirect to God in Christianity would be appropriate, a solution which would preserve "classical theism" as a search term. However, I'm by no means well versed in the nuances of Christian theology, so it may be the case that someone can articulate how "classical theism" is sufficiently distinct from the broader category of Christian theism that it deserves its own article. --Mike Agricola (talk) 19:19, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stubify or redirect to Monotheism - the article, as pointed out above, is entirely original research. So while this article is not an especially good start, an article on this topic might be appropriate ... although on further review on Google Scholar - http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=classical+theism&hl=en&as_sdt=0,47 - most of the references to "classical theism" are really just talking about "theism" and calling it "classical" in order to differentiate it from pantheism or modernist philosophies - "classical theism" isn't really its own thing. --B (talk) 21:17, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Stubify: Since I wrote my comment yesterday, I gave this topic more thought and looked into a bit more. Classical theism is a subset of monotheism characterized by a belief in certain divine attributes, including God's immutability, impassibility, simplicity, timelessness and existence independent of all else. [8] (See also [9][10]). Classical theism is monotheistic, but not all monotheistic traditions hold that God possesses the attributes postulated by classical theism. Redirecting to Monotheism would not be ideal. A redirect to God in Abrahamic religions would arguably be a better choice, but I would argue against it at this point because (1) classical theism can exist outside the context of the Abrahamic religions (e.g. "Plato's God", Neoplatonism - [11]) and (2) classical theism is based upon philosophical premises, while the Abrahamic religions claim that their basis for their understanding of God's nature derives from divine revelation (albeit this revelation is traditionally held to be consistent with the philosophical tenets of classical theism). In short, it's a notable, reasonably well-defined, topic (WP:GNG) supported by numerous WP:RS that wouldn't fit well with a redirect to any existing article of which I'm currently aware. The article is clearly in poor shape though and needs to be rewritten to conform to WP standards. However, this problem is WP:SURMOUNTABLE and does not require deletion. --Mike Agricola (talk) 20:41, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I instigated this Afd. I don't know much about the subject. I went to Hebrew school on Sunday's when I was growing up in New Mexico. I am not especially interested in the subject, can't motivate myself to get motivated about it, I confess. I am annoyed by people on Quora and elsewhere on the internet who are referencing this article as a basis for the definition and legitimacy of Classical Theism though. I am perfectly willing to accept that the problem is WP:SURMOUNTABLE. But the article has been sitting here, in this state, since 2008, unsurmounted for five years. Is this something that I need to ignore, and not complain about further, given the fact that I don't want to repair the article, and that Wikipedia is a crowd-sourced effort, so this is an inherent, structural limitation? If that is the case, tell me, and I will thank you, and hold my peace, without any sarcasm or disgruntlement.
Afterthought: I hope that the official Wikipedia policy for nominating an article for deletion under these circumstances isn't that I then am obliged to surmount the problems with it? Urg... I haven't nominated articles for deletion to excess, maybe three times in 18 months, even though I have wanted to do so on innumerable occasions, but held back.
Okay, let's say that I am not obliged to surmount. What happens next? --FeralOink (talk) 22:00, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Your concerns about the state of the article are certainly valid; it is problematic in multiple respects and needs a thorough rewrite. From a Wikipedia policy standpoint though, "Collaborative editing means that incomplete or poorly written first drafts can evolve over time into excellent articles. Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome." (WP:IMPERFECT) Based on the reliable sources I presented earlier, the concept itself seems notable (WP:GNG) and sufficiently distinct from existing articles such as Monotheism to warrant its own article. With good editing and proper referencing, it has the potential to be a good, well-written, article and as such, the "deletion of articles with potential should be avoided" (WP:POTENTIAL). Anyways, you don't need to ignore the problems with this article; one way to encourage other editors to improve it is to put in a request at a relevant Wikiproject. WikiProject_Theology would be the most suitable place, but as it seems to be currently inactive, you could also try WP:JUDAISM and/or WP:Christianity for example. If no one else steps forward, I might rewrite the article as a Stub at some point (if I have time) using the reliable sources I presented earlier for inline citations...but I'm probably not the best editor for this job as I learned most of what I now know about the concept of classical theism after encountering this deletion discussion. So I'd prefer to let someone else with a deeper understanding present this topic to the world. :) --Mike Agricola (talk) 21:35, 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, Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 21:09, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rewrite - it is a subject definitely worthy of an article but, like so many other wikipedia articles on religion, needs to be re-written. If that will ever be done or not is of course another matter. Definitely should not be merged into "Monotheism" or "Abrahamic religions" as one of the things the article gets right is that the concept owes a lot to Aristotle.Smeat75 (talk) 00:31, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - See [12] and [13] and [14], which use the term to refer to a type of doctrine; i.e., the concept and term have coverage in prima facie reliable sources. None of this means the article can't be rewritten.--Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 18:07, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - The term classical theism may be found in some authors, but that does not make it in any way a technical term with a defined content in academic writing to justify an article on it. "Classical" seems to function as an equivalent of traditional or mainstream. Apart from the references to Aristotle, Averroes, Plotinus and Maimonedes, the names associated with Cl.Th. are questionable. Plato himself had three "first principles" (The Good or in earlier writings the realm of ideas, the demiurge and matter). Anselm's Proslogion (chap 2) contains these words "Lord, thou who bestowest understanding ..." A.'s God is intensely personal which contradicts the opening definition and the same could be said of Thomas Aquinas and Augustine. Furthermore, Anselm approaches the existence of God from an 'a priori' angle (the ontological argument) The second paragraph of the "Major Concepts" section is also highly questionable (I'll put details on the talk-page if requested there. I simply can't find enough useful material to favour merging, but maybe some snippets might enrich "Theism". Jpacobb (talk) 21:56, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I find reason to disagree with the conclusion that classical theism is not a "technical term with a defined content in academic writing." Some examples of reference works which devote a subsection to discussing classical theism include the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy [15], An Introductory Dictionary of Theology and Religious Studies [16], and even the Encyclopedia Britannica [17]. Granted, there is some fluidity in the theological concept, but the same can be said for other theological concepts too such as monotheism (e.g. the strict monotheism of Judaism and Islam contrasted with Christian Trinitarianism). Nevertheless, these reference texts demonstrate that that the topic is sufficiently self-cohesive and definable to exist as a notable concept in academic writing. What matters as far as WP is concerned is that academic authors and reference works do discuss the concept at length so that there is "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (satisfies WP:GNG). --Mike Agricola (talk) 22:00, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rewrite. Mike Agricola has amply demonstrated that this term has currency in the academic realm, and there really is not suitable target for a merge. Theism and monotheism are too broad for this to fit into and God in Abrahamic religions isn't suitable because this view was held by Greek philosophers as well as Abrahamic philosophers. This article has plenty of potential and it's current poor quality is not a reason to delete. --Cerebellum (talk) 16:45, 14 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) 04:42, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ACORN demographics (categories)

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

The article was created after the information was removed from ACORN (demographics). If the information belongs anywhere it's in the main article, although I'm not sure whether it's suitable as the list of classifications may be protected by copyright. Peter James (talk) 15:38, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 28 February 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) 21:07, 7 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. Nomination withdrawn, so to speak, AND consensus to delete, AND a proposition to userfy and improve. I will "KEEP" this pro forma, then userfy to Michig without leaving a redirect. Complaints can be filed with Sue, in triplicate, and in at least six languages with clicks. Drmies (talk) 19:50, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fluffy (song)

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

No credible assertion of notability for song, and no assertion of notability for Wolf Alice either. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:31, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 8 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) 22:53, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rami Aziz

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

Has no fights for a top tier organization and the only source or link is to his fight record.Mdtemp (talk) 20:20, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Mdtemp (talk) 20:20, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 8 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) 22:54, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Marolt

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

Currently fails WP:GNG. Unsourced pre-2010 BLP, created by User:Cmarolt - prod removed without comment. The article is about an Austrian businessman, known for founding several healthcare publications. Looks a bit self promotional. I don't get any news hits for him and Ghits only point to passing mentions. Funny Pika! 19:29, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 8 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. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 18:38, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Satyabrat Sinha

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

Does not meet WP:PROF or WP:BIO. Randykitty (talk) 19:28, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The trouble is that Wikipedia invites everybody in the world to write a BLP about themselves. It is not surprising that many misguided people accept. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:38, 10 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) 18:13, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Christina Edkins

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

WP:NOTNEWS. A single murder victim isn't notable, despite how tragic it may be. Classic case of WP:ONEEVENT. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:13, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:54, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Also, speedy deletion? According to Wikipedia's policies on speedy deletion, if a page is an "article about a real person, individual animal(s), organization, web content or organized event that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant" then it can be deleted speedily. This has been covered extensively in national media starting from today, which is strong evidence that there is some level on which this article can be seen as "important or significant".--Sandy P212 (talk) 19:39, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nope: concrete evidence of actual impact on something beyond itself. A murder which books or films get written about would qualify for an article; a murder which raises legal issues, such that the victim has whole new laws named after her to try to resolve them, would qualify for an article; a murder which is still being written about by other people 15 or 20 years later, because for better or for worse it initiated a major cultural shift that people are still trying to get a handle on, would qualify for an article. But if all you can write is "a murder happened, end of article, stub notice", then that does not qualify. Not all murder victims automatically qualify for articles on Wikipedia just for being murder victims; just like any other class of article topic, there are notable ones and non-notable ones, and each case has to be judged on its own merits. This is not automatically comparable to Lawrence just because you flipped the racial dimension inside out; Lawrence had actual documentable social and legal impacts that this one has not yet had. It's the presence or absence of ongoing social and legal and cultural impacts that determine whether or not a murder gets to have an article on here, not the simple fact of the murder having happened. Bearcat (talk) 05:48, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; it's a sad story but there is nothing to indicate that this is an unusual case. ObtuseAngle (talk) 19:43, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOTNEWS for the event, WP:BLP1E for the subject. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 19:47, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete tragic, but Wikipedia is not a newspaper. It's too early to say if this event has any lasting impact beyond this news cycle. Funny Pika! 20:05, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As stated several times already, tragic situations are not necessarily noteworthy enough to be considered encyclopedic. In fact, unless the person murdered was already famous prior to their death, very few murders could possibly be considered encyclopedic. 64.201.173.145 (talk) 21:27, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the record: while it is possible for a murder to be sufficiently notable as to warrant a Wikipedia article, that is not automatically extended to every murder that happens to take place. The difference is in whether lasting and sustained significance can be demonstrated; the textbook example of this is Matthew Shepard, whose enduring impact can be plainly demonstrated by the fact that 15 years after his death he's still an internationally famous household name, who still continues to be the subject of one of the single largest volumes of literature and art and legal efforts and other cultural and social impacts in the entire history of media coverage of murder. If all you can properly source is the very basic details of the fact that a murder happened, with no documentable impact on anything bigger than itself, then that's not a murder that Wikipedia should be covering. As tragic as it may be, there are hundreds or thousands of murders in the world every single day, but we do not keep articles on every last news event on earth just on the off chance that it might eventually develop more enduring historic significance — we wait until that enduring historic significance has already been demonstrated before we deem it to be an appropriate article topic. Delete unless and until much stronger sourcing than is present here, demonstrating a much more significant and lasting social or cultural impact than this version implies, can be added. Bearcat (talk) 23:48, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Neither the event nor the victim has enduring notability. WWGB (talk) 00:01, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Tragic - but nonetheless currently non-encyclopedic - murder. Non-notable individuals; WP:NOTNEWS; no indication that there will be "enduring notability of persons and events." Keri (talk) 20:12, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now -- We need to see how the case develops. The latest news that I heard was that the perpetrator had bene found and sectioned. I suspect that is not the end of the matter. People find random homicides of this kind alarming, so that they get a lot of coverage. I suspect that there will be a trial, which will result in a detention "at Her Majesty's pleasure". This is liable to generate a debate over what should be done with dangerous psychopaths (and such like). Peterkingiron (talk) 21:54, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • None of the things you mention are valid reasons to 'keep.' To reiterate Bearcat above: "[W]e do not keep articles on every last news event on earth just on the off chance that it might eventually develop more enduring historic significance — we wait until that enduring historic significance has already been demonstrated before we deem it to be an appropriate article topic." Keri (talk) 23:23, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I concur with the above. I can't speak for everyone who is calling for deletion, but I wouldn't object to this article being recreated someday if -- and only if -- the case proves to have lasting significance above that of a typical murder. However, allowing this article to remain in the interim sets a precedent that every murder ought to have its own Wikipedia entry because it might prove to be a significant case someday. Hundreds of people are murdered in the UK every year; thousands are murdered in the United States. Every one of these murders is tragic. Very few of them are encyclopedic. The bar for "encyclopedic" is quite high. ObtuseAngle (talk) 02:53, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom - WP:NOTNEWS for the event; WP:BLP1E for the subject. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 13:14, 12 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) 22:57, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nobu Hotel and Residences

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

This project was apparently scrapped as of October 21, 2011. There is however a new Nobu Hotel and restaurant that recently opened at Caesars Palace in Las Vegas on February 3, 2013. Stubbleboy 18:20, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Architecture. ★☆ Stubbleboy 23:14, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 8 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) 18:14, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Halo multiplayer maps

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

Wikipedia is not a game guide. Yes, there are sources, but they are strategy guides for the maps, hardly content that would be suitable for Wikipedia. As it stands currently, the only out-of-game information is the release date of each item. James086Talk 18:15, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. My comments at the previous AfD still stand; there isn't enough information about the development of specific maps, let alone reception of them, to fill an article or establish notability outside of Halo's multiplayer (which is notable, and covered within each game.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 18:25, 7 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) ★☆ Stubbleboy 18:52, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Innappropriate content and NOT GUIDE. -- The1337gamer (talk) 18:58, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dave Fuchs. If there's no critical commentary or information on development then it's WP:GAMETRIVIA. --Teancum (talk) 22:20, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTGUIDE. The article is just a list of content with no real analytical value. There also isn't sufficient coverage for the maps themselves other then what is already summarized on each respective article's page. Stubbleboy 23:04, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 8 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. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 07:45, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SMEEN

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

Unsourced, non-notable neologism. PROD tag was removed without comment or improvement, so here we are at AFD. Dawn Bard (talk) 17:31, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 7 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 redirect to Funny or Die. J04n(talk page) 22:59, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Enter the Fat One

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

Orphaned article for years. No sourcing available. Also does not appear to exist on Funny or Die's site DP76764 (Talk) 17:31, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and possibly Redirect someplace. If the short film was created, its mere existence can be sourced to the production itself. That it no longer found at the Funny or Die website five years after it was released does not mean that it was not there once-upon-a-time, and we do not expect nor demand that the internet freeze as it was in 2008. Did the nominator check the Wayback machine? I agree it does not merit a separate article as its lacking significant coverage or analysis or commentary fails WP:NF. Even if not meriting a separate article it is still proper that it might be listed as one of their released projects in articles of writer/director Adam McKay or writer/actor John C. Reilly or distributor article (McKay's company Funny or Die). But as a separate article? Nope. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:14, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re: I don't expect FoD to keep hosting things eternally, but since they produced it, one would think that there would be some evidence of it retained on their site? On top of that, Google results are extremely scant for this film; definitely seems to lack WP:N. Maybe a Delete/Redirect to Funny or Die? DP76764 (Talk) 22:19, 7 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) 23:00, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Parature

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

Tagged for notability since May of last year, this business vaguely describes itself as a software company that develops on-demand customer service and social engagement software for small and mid-market businesses. I gather what this means in English is that they're one of the many customer service outsourcing firms that find Wikipedia a good place to get free publicity. Google News finds a busy PR department sending out press releases, but the first several pages found nothing but press release coverage of routine releases and transactions. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:15, 7 March 2013 (UTC) Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:15, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. 17:17, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:17, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not appear to have achieve substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources. The Washington Post article is interesting, but appears to be mainly about the CEO rather than the company itself. Also note that The Washington Post is a client of this company, so in this case it may not be entirely independent of the subject. —gorgan_almighty (talk) 19:34, 10 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) 23:02, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suzanna von Nathusius

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

Completing an ill-formed AfD nomination of this article for TotalUseless , who tried to nominate this for deletion, and spake thusly:

She is not a notable child actor. --TotalUseless (talk) 15:41, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No opinion myself, though I would note that sources, if they exist, probably aren't in English. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:56, 7 March 2013 (UTC) Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:56, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Biography-related deletion discussions. 16:58, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. 16:58, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:58, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • neutral Beeing a polish actor she is only mentioned in polish wikipedia without an article for herself. See [[:pl:Klan_%28serial_telewizyjny%29] in the section Odtwórcy ról dziecięcych]] which means Childactors. Since all the real actors of the series have their own articles on the polish wiki, I am a bit doubtful the notability on the english wikipedia. -- Neozoon 22:04, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Well... to be fair to them, they are a smaller Wikipedia and do not have the editing manpower nor sheer body of articles as do we here at en.Wikipeida. 900 thousand articles there and over 4.2 million here. 9 million registered users there and over 18 million editors here. And besides, we do not judge notability or article style here based upon what others do or don't do elsewhere by other standards. Point being, that even if no one at a smaller Wikipedia has yet written about her, that lack does not mean that she should not or can not be written of here... where we may judge her by the body of her work. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:42, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article was deleted in the Polish wikipedia, because the majority of the contribuator in the discussion of the Articles for deletion at the polish wikikpedia denied the relevance of her as you can see here:
pl:Suzanna von Nathusius
pl:Wikipedia:Poczekalnia/Załatwione_biografie_(sierpień_2010)#Suzanna_von_Nathusius
No description of her character Małgosia Borecka in the series Klan is available.
If her role is so important why it is not possible to tell something about her influence on the action in the series?
The other roles she played were also minor roles.
Delete. --TotalUseless (talk) 01:25, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
With respects, I struck your second "delete" as it is inherent in your bringing this to AFD in the first place. Also, please understand that en.Wikipeidia does not base its decisions upon decisions made two years ago in a foreign language Wikipedia about a different article about this person, apparently deleted there by count of votes and not through an evaluation using the applicable policies and guidelines in use HERE. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:04, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Only pros and cons have to be taken into consideration as this is no vote. --TotalUseless (talk) 02:53, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We gauge per applicable policies and guidelines, yes... but as nominator, your repeating your deletion reasons preceded by a big bold "delete" as if it were a new !vote is unnecessary. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 09:28, 12 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 redirect to List of Dilbert characters#Carol. J04n(talk page) 23:04, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Carol (Dilbert)

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

This is an unsourced mess, and the character itself isn't really notable. There is little to nothing here of value that is not already at List of Dilbert characters#Carol. It's mostly describing one-off strips, which may or may not be canon and definitely are not meaingful. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:23, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that the reasons given in the nominations are things that need improvement in the article, or references, or editing. They aren't reasons alone to delete. However, if it can be shown that sources don't exist to verify the claims in there article (and thus those parts are removed), and then the article is the same as at List of Dilbert characters#Carol, then it should be redirected not deleted. Senator2029 ★ talk 18:46, 7 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. WP:SNOW. The Bushranger One ping only 22:30, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Goat Transportation

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

It's a Fox! (What did I break) 15:22, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. 16:05, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:05, 7 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) 23:08, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Higher-order control

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

Not notable, unable to find anything about it on Google, no sources, possible OR and POV. Jack (talk) 15:06, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 7 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) 23:10, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First-order control

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

Not notable, unable to find anything about it on Google, no sources, possible OR and POV. Jack (talk) 15:06, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 7 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. The question of merging is an editorial decision that can be dealt with outside this AfD. This close is without prejudice to any future action that may be taken in that regard. SpinningSpark 23:04, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of market opening times

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

Per WP:AFDHOW, I am nominating this list for deletion. The list, created in February 2007, in part duplicates a subset of about 50 exchanges from an existing list, for that subset, it add columns on open, lunch, and closed times, none of which is referenced, and all of which could be considered WP:MISCELLANEA. Routine online searches do indicate that refs for these times appear to be available, at least in some cases. Nevertheless, even if the times are notable there is no justification for having a list of open times maintained separately and for only an unspecified subset of the exchanges. 72.244.206.168 (talk) 12:53, 7 March 2013 (UTC) Created page for IP from information at Talk:List of market opening times GB fan 13:24, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If your position were to prevail, we fail to address the MOS:SAL issue: the list consists of an unspecified subset of stock exchanges; according to the MOS, "Stand-alone lists should begin with a lead section that ... makes direct statements about the criteria by which members of the list were selected" 68.165.77.86 (talk) 06:54, 15 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. Per NFOOTY (go to the talkpage of NFOOTY if you want to change the language of the criteria for inclusion) Keeper | 76 03:35, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tomasz Kowalski

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

Contested Prod where no reason was given. Player has made one appearance in a fully professional league and has a couple of seasons at minor teams in non-professinal leagues. Technically passes WP:NFOOTY as has played in a fully professional league, but fails WP:GNG by a mile. No real indication of substantial reliable sources. Fenix down (talk) 13:37, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - meets NFOOTBALL - as he is early in his career it is not surprising he doesn't quite meet GNG yet, but we should allow the benefit of the doubt. If he still doesn't meet GNG in a few years then we can re-consider. GiantSnowman 18:52, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NFOOTBALL is not relevant when a player does not make GNG even closely. Frankly quite appalling conduct from an admin link GS who should know that wikipedia is not a place where articles are created and then left "for a few years" to see if they become notable. I have no issue with recreation once the player is an established pro and is therefore generally notable however at the moment he is not and cannot be described in any way as notable. Fenix down (talk) 07:01, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - meets NFOOTBALL. Has played in a fully professional league.Simione001 (talk) 05:47, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - As I've said in this AfD: I generally agree with Fenix down, 1 or 2 appearances does not confer notability. Instead of creating articles on footballer once they first enter the field in a professional match, we should try to make the article establish notability - i.e. explain why this particular footballer is notable. My main concern in this case, is that if we decide to delete this article, when would it be appropiate to re-make it? When he has played 5 matches, 10 matches? I say we should give the creator some time to improve the article, and if the subject still fails WP:GNG in a couple of months, we could nominate it for deletion again. Mentoz86 (talk) 11:26, 13 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. Many "delete" opinions appear a bit ... less than thoroughly policy-based to me, but since nobody objects to the deletion....  Sandstein  12:57, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

LTTE Propaganda

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

Article is full of Original research and POV. 70.49.98.169 (talk) 23:46, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I have mentioned in the talk page I agree with this point but any WP:OR and WP:SYNTH that has creeped in is more due to my shortcomings as an editor and does not reflect on the Notability of the subject. The subject does meet WP:SIGCOV or I would not have found the references I mentioned. Before deleting this article can someone apart from me try to edit this article and make it more netural and encyclopedic? I don't mind doing this but that would defeat the collaborative nature of Wikipedia.--Wikishagnik (talk) 19:02, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per WP:OR and also as per this Talk:LTTE_Propaganda as the creator and Principal editor of this article also agrees LTTE is is not alone organizing the Eelam cause is supported by various groups ,political parties which are Legal in many countries are not part of the LTTE.To say anyone who supports the Eelam cause is a LTTE Propagandist is wrong and may even violate WP:Redflag as the LTTE is banned organization and to say that Legal organization or an individual is LTTE Propagandist implies that he is working on behalf of the Organization which is a very serious charge.This discussion is here on serious accusations.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:54, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fully agree with the above view.--Kanags (talk) 12:12, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from WP:OR (which I have answered above) nothing else really makes sense. WP:REDFLAG is about specific claims and all that I have claimes is from published sources. If you have concerns about the original source then check the references and take it up with the publishers. Just because an article covers controversial grounds does not mean it should be deleted. -Wikishagnik (talk) 13:54, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteThis can't be a stand alone article and certain facts could be merged with existing LTTE article. Otherwise it will violate WP:NPOV.HudsonBreeze (talk) 17:30, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If WP:NPOV is addressed by future edits, lets say someone gives a scholarly deffinition of what LTTE propoganda is and presents the accusations of LTTE doing this and that, and also presents both side of the coin equally. Would it be OK to keep the article then? -Wikishagnik (talk) 00:08, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The title, "LTTE propaganda" itself is POV, there in no need for scholarly definition for it; that will further make the article more POV. It should be deleted and certain facts should be merged with the existing LTTE article.HudsonBreeze (talk) 03:37, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nope! the title isn't WP:NPOV. If you have reliable sources that says LTTE (or its propoganda mechanism) did such-and-such good stuff then please add it to the article, and no! that we beyond the scope of the article. Nope! again but WP:DEL-REASON,WP:NPOV and the NPOV template don't say that an article has to be deleted if there is a POV issue. It simply asks you to improve the article by editing it and removing any unsorced statements. Even techinically the accusation of OR is wrong because Nothing in this article is assumed or forwarded by me. All contentious statements have been duly attributed to reliable sources. I conceeded to OR simply to encourage others to edit the article but I guess that was too much to ask. Lack of a certain POV does not automatically assume the existence of such. If you have anything that reflects a different opinion from what is expressed in the article and have reliable sources for it then please do add it to the article. I have added for example that the US government was not happy with the reaction of Sri Lankan Government to LTTE Propoganda.--Wikishagnik (talk) 22:14, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Even a single source which you have cited, doesn't have "LTTE Propaganda" in its article heading or book title. But you have managed to create a Wikipedia article on the title "LTTE Propaganda" based on the facts which are available at those articles and books; that is the reason the "LTTE Propaganda" should be deleted on Wikipedia as a Stand-Alone article and the facts should be merged with existing LTTE Wikipedia article.HudsonBreeze (talk) 03:16, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please understand WP:SIGCOV which specifically states Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material to answer your query. Had LTTE Propoganda only recieved trivial coverage in a handful of sources, your argument would have been valid, but the coverage in each of the sources is more than trivial. I have seen entire pages covering the topic. Moreover I would not have found so many sources and frankly, would not have bothered then because I am not close enough to LTTE to think of material. -Wikishagnik (talk) 07:38, 5 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,  Sandstein  10:07, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note IP 82.40.203.114 has voted above and another Editor has voted in the other section after relisting.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:38, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. --Natkeeran (talk) 02:08, 15 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 17:35, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrence Trent

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

No reliable sources, no "notability," or real-world significance, and the only "source" is that of the website that employs him. OGBranniff (talk) 03:52, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment in opposition. Your claim that "Chessbase" is considered a reliable source is supported nowhere on this site. Of course, if you can cite to any past discussion that proves your point I will concede, but I searched the WP:CHESS archives and found nothing saying that "Chessbase" is considered a reliable source. OGBranniff (talk) 06:52, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to comment in opposition: See [32], comment by User:Bubba73 at 18:55, 3 August 2010 (UTC). Toccata quarta (talk) 07:08, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks, User:Toccata quarta. I am familiar with both ChessBase and Chessgames.com, as I use Chessgames.com on a regular basis to look up historical games. I believe Bubba73's comment was in the context of the historical game notations, namely, that ChessBase and Chessgames.com are reliable sources for the purposes of citing game notations only. I know that Chessgames.com cannot be used as a source for anything other than the games themselves, and the Chessgames.com article has been even deleted a few times. Therefore ChessBase is not a reliable source, generally speaking. Thanks. OGBranniff (talk) 08:30, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In the context of chess news websites, ChessBase.com is about as significant as CNN or The New York Times in non-specialist journalism. What source do you suggest using for chess news? ChessVibes? Or do you just suggest nuking articles, and concluding with a triumphant "Magnus Carlsen is not notable" announcement? Toccata quarta (talk) 09:23, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, actually. But since WP:CHESS is part of Wikipedia, we should use the standard Wikipedia policies and guidelines for notability like WP:GNG, WP:RS, and WP:V. If you are suggesting that these policies are too strict for chess-related articles, you have every right to propound your viewpoint -- however, these changes need to have community consensus before they are implemented. In any case, major players like Magnus Carlsen have plenty of coverage in the mainstream, traditional media. Nobody here is saying that Carlsen, Fischer, Kasparov, etc. are not notable. OGBranniff (talk) 09:35, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But apparently your "etc." did not extend to Andrew Soltis, here's what you wrote: "Like, we don't have problems finding third-party sources that vouch for Bobby Fischer, Magnus Carlsen, Hikaru Nakamura, etc. The fact that such sources are not extant for Andrew Soltis means that he is not notable under wikipedia standards. If he is not notable under Wikipedia standards then his article should be deleted." (The AfD was SNOW-closed.) I'm tired of OGBranniff warpath of nuking articles, I find this entire thread (and apparently more to come) disruptive. To suggest that ChessBase is not a reliable source is more of the same nonsense. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 15:36, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of just saying you are "tired of it," can you please explain what makes ChessBase a reliable source? And why are you talking about Andrew Soltis instead of addressing the AFD here? Is it really because you have nothing to say in support of keeping this article? Furthermore, multiple reliable sources were found about Andrew Soltis that covered the subject in depth, such as the New York Times. If such sources exist for this "Lawrence Trent" fellow, then I agree this article should be kept. Do you know of any? Thanks, OGBranniff (talk) 23:03, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note. Also, ChessBase is a database of chess games. How is it in any way a "reliable source" about news, people, and events (i.e., stuff that's not chess game notations)? Also, how is this The only source for the article in any way "significant coverage in multiple reliable sources." The conclusion to delete is overwhelmingly clear. OGBranniff (talk) 00:10, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
ChessBase.com is more than just a chess database. And I imagine it's a reliable because GMs like Anish Giri, Alejandro Ramírez, Sergei Shipov et al. have written articles for it. Toccata quarta (talk) 06:00, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you can find an article on "ChessBase" written by a reputable author about Lawrence Trent, just let us know and we'll discuss it. Until then, the article fails WP:GNG. Delete. Thank you. OGBranniff (talk) 06:03, 1 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) 12:21, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Chess has been informed of this discussion. J04n(talk page) 12:26, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I couldn't find anything substantial in an internet search to indicate sufficient notability (per WP:Notability "... address the subject directly in detail", "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention"); the typical minimum standard for notability in WP:Chess is a Grandmaster title (and even that's not enough automatically ensure notability in some cases). I suspect there might be something about Lawrence in British Chess Magazine or Chess magazine, neither of which I have access to. I support deleting this, with the knowledge that it could be recreated if proper sources were found. Sasata (talk) 16:30, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Like Sasata, I came up blank when it came to finding substantial multiple independent, reliable, articles about the subject. Even the lone source at chessbase-shop.com (NOT chessbase.com, but the online store, which utterly fails WP:RS no matter what one thinks of chessbase.com itself) doesn't really establish notablity. He's created two DVD's (neither of which are notable) and finished 7th at a youth championship in 2003, which isn't notable either. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 20:22, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Trent is a very visible chess media personality. A third of the Full English Breakfast blog team, he is a broadcaster at the very top level, a published writer, creator/presenter of DVDs, active tournament player at a high level, a titled International Master (IM) etc. If we consider his chess title alone, it is higher level than some others here on WP have attained. Our general rule of thumb is GM (or IM with additional notable skills). Clearly he has those extra skills, in the same way as IM Mark Dvoretsky is known for his coaching. And Chessbase is clearly a reputable source. Brittle heaven (talk) 01:09, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well it depend what you want. There are many sources that refer to him doing the things I list. Just Google his name and lo, there they all are. But if you want someone in the New York Times delivering chapter and verse about how well he conducted his interview with Carlsen, or what an interesting presentation he gave, or what a good game he played with GM Kotronias, well then ... it's easy to always demand a greater level of detail than can actually be found. In my eyes at least, lots of passing mentions and a consistent high profile more or less equals significant coverage. Sure, he's not Magnus Carlsen, but has performed in one way or another across the chess spectrum, including his work for Chessbase and at the London Classic, one of the foremost chess events in the world. Brittle heaven (talk) 03:10, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lucky for you we have a guideline for "lots of passing mentions": WP:MILL. Just being mentioned is not enough. He has to be notable. Amazon is chock-full of "published authors" and people who have created niche DVD's on everything from chess to UFOs. The Internet has more bloggers than you can shake a stick at. We can find lots of "passing mentions" for all them. However, very few of them are actually notable. This is why the threshold is "non-trivial" coverage. Also, I fully reject the statement that he is "a broadcaster at the very top level". When he becomes a regular on the BBC, THEN he'll be a presenter at the very top level. Lastly, we've yet to see an actual citation from Chessbase itself. We've seen one from his author's blurb at Chessbase's online store (not notable nor reliable) but nothing from the site proper. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 03:22, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I say, you can always ask for a step higher than is available, in order to try to 'prove' your point. And as for the BBC ... well it may have escaped your notice that the BBC don't run shows on the London Classic, or any other top chess event for that matter. So it's a bit like saying Neil Armstrong wasn't a notable astronaut because he failed to make a landing on Pluto. You aspire to what is the best possible and if you achieve it, then you have made the top level. Brittle heaven (talk) 03:52, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not User:Shinmawa that is asking for a "step higher than is available." What is asking for that is Wikipedia notability and verifiability policy. And if you cannot provide that "step" for which the policy asks, then the article gets deleted. Your analogy about Neil Armstrong is patently ridiculous by the way. What we are saying is the subject of the article is not notable based on some mention in the Chessbase online store and other trivial mentions elsewhere. OGBranniff (talk) 04:09, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It didn't escape my notice. However, I wasn't the one who claimed he is a "top tier broadcaster", either. I think Neil Armstrong, however, got more than "passing mentions". Your analogies and definitions confound me. Okay, we'll make this simple. Find us one article of any substance, written by ANY reputable author (other than himself) in a reputable source that focuses on Mr. Trent (no passing mentions). We're not looking for the front page of the New York Times. We're not even asking for the third to the last page of the Sun. We're willing to look at anything as long as it is reliable, reputable, secondary, and non-trivial. Anything. If you can present that much, perhaps we can have a real discussion. ...and please don't just tell me to go Google it myself. If you want to make the argument, please present it yourself. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 04:20, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is becoming tedious now. As I have already said, Trent is obviously a high profile chess player and chess media personality at this current time, commentating on some of the largest, most prestigious chess tournaments around, in addition to his IM title which is just one step away from the recognised article-eligible GM title. He is just the sort of person that the public want to look up on WP to find out more (- more of course is needed in the article, but good articles were'nt born in a day). We developed the 'IM plus other skills' criteria in the early days of the wikiproject in order that we didn't have to waste time arguing the toss over every person who didn't quite fit the model reference mold. Yes, I can see that I could indeed enter references from the 'Telegraph online' for example, or I could spend a while going through old chess magazines, but as I can see you have already made your mind up and will say it is too superficial or too 'passing', or not detailed enough, or the Telegraph isn't reliable or whatever, then there's no point in me wasting my time. The point is, it shouldn't be necessary in the case of someone like Trent, who is obviously high profile within the chess community (maybe not in your world). So if you want to delete him, be my guest. It's only the usefulness of WP that suffers. There are hundreds of chess articles that you can tear down in this way, that are improperly sourced - let's delete the lot, regardless of what common sense says. After all, rules are rules, eh? My vote is to keep, but if others think not, then that's fine by me. I won't be wasting any more time on this wave of nuisance nominations by the way. And when Branniff has succeeded in his personal quest to remove as many British chess articles as possible, future editors will simply add them back in. A very sensible use of everyone's time. Brittle heaven (talk) 11:29, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If he is so high profile, then it should be easy to CITE A SOURCE. If you have something from the Telegraph, SHARE IT (The Telegraph more than meets Wikipedia's criteria for a reliable source). However, you are right, this is getting tedious. We keep asking for a source so we can have a discussion with cited references rather than unfounded assertions, but rather you presuppose our motivations and put words in our mouths. If you can give us sources that meet Wikipedia's (not ours, but Wikipedia's) criteria of WP:V and WP:RS, I very well may change my !vote. However, you and everyone else have failed to do so.-- ShinmaWa(talk) 15:48, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See [33]. Toccata quarta (talk) 07:44, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Response to Toccata. How are those any more than trivial, fleeting, and passing mentions? OGBranniff (talk) 19:44, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Did I ever make that claim? Toccata quarta (talk) 19:49, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then why bother commenting at all? What "claim" were you postulating with your terse and vague "see . . ." above? To simply show that Mr. Trent lacks any in-depth coverage in any source? OGBranniff (talk) 13:49, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Because one editor told another "If you have something from the Telegraph, SHARE IT", but received no reply, so I provided the material for him, so that he could judge it. Toccata quarta (talk) 14:00, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks, that makes sense. None of the coverage meets GNG unfortunately. Thank you. OGBranniff (talk) 14:04, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - Lawence is almost a GM, according to FIDE he reached 2487(http://ratings.fide.com/id.phtml?event=408638), so he's unfortunate not quite a GM yet. He is a chess author, but not a major one. ChessBase is a reliable source in my opinion in that it has editors which check content like a newspaper and published information to a high quality, in practice higher then most newspapers. I haven't found anything published about Lawrence that is substantial or likely to meet WP:GNG. I did find, http://chessbase-shop.com/en/authors/39, and items on 4ncl.co.uk such as http://www.4ncl.co.uk/download/chessmag1213/08-13%204NCL.pdf (game on page 9). So I conclude it is a weak delete but am open to changing my vote if a substantial reliable source is found. Regards, Sun Creator(talk) 21:00, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete basically per SunCreator. Trent is an IM, which is a high performance level, but not the top echelon, even at the national level, and normally I would want to see a bit extra. Trent is not all that obscure, and the article correctly points out his efforts in providing commentary at major tournaments such as the London Chess Classics, but the coverage I have seen of Trent here is tangential, nothing about Trent. The published DVDs that Trent could have produced could have provided notability if they had extensively been the subject of independent and reliable reviews, but I see no evidence of that either. The overall problem here is poor sourcing. The only cited source is a self-published presentation by the ChessBase shop which is OK for basic facts but not one that lends notability. I have the nagging feeling that Trent is very close to being notable, and I would be happy if someone could prove with some sourcing that he is notable enough, but at the present time I am not seeing it. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:12, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This BLP does not meet WP:GNG. If additional RS exist (as claimed), they belong in the article. Miniapolis 13:53, 15 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. Jenks24 (talk) 12:06, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Super Diaper Baby at New York City

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

It is not clear that this subject meets Wikipedia's notability criteria. Prod removed by creator without the addition of reliable sources or a clear claim to notability. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:10, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I assume this refers to The Adventures of Super Diaper Baby but it seems to be a non-notable PR event for that publication or a related publication. We don't normally have articles for such PR events, there are no references about this event, and I can't find anything in reliable sources. There might be a case for merging but (a) where? and (b) I don't think we need to cover every promotional stunt. If there is evidence of coverage in reliable sources, I will of course reconsider. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:28, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:58, 7 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. As a bit of a side note, though, there's nothing wrong with Necrothesp's argument – the consensus is just against him in this case – and there's really no need to beat him over the head with bluelinks. Jenks24 (talk) 12:05, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2013 Peru plane crash

edit
2013 Peru plane crash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:AIRCRASH. Small private plane crash with nobody notable on board. WP:NOTNEWS also applies.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William 11:01, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. ...William 11:01, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William 11:01, 7 March 2013 (UTC) ...William 11:01, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:11, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The crash is of zero significance for the society or aviation industry.
  2. There has not been any continous coverage. It was just a news spike, which is not acceptable per WP:NOTNEWS.
  3. There has not been any in-depth coverage. It's all just a rephrasing of news bulletins.
--FoxyOrange (talk) 16:49, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per FoxyOrange; if news agencies don't even report the type of aircraft, where is the significance? Hitting power lines is actually one of the more common causes of light aircraft crashes - a light aircraft being one with a maximum takeoff weight of 12,500lbs/5,700kg or less, so the King Air 200 is firmly in the 'must meet higher standards of notability' suggested by WP:AIRCRASH (12,500lbs/5,700kg is not an arbitrary weight, it is a cut-off point in aviation regulations worldwide and aircraft with a MTOW more than this must comply with more onerous regulations). The number of deaths does not confer notability, this argument keeps cropping up in air crash AfDs but there is no 'magic number' as to number of deaths. YSSYguy (talk) 03:02, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Crashes happen. Sometimes they're notble; others, not. FoxyOrange and YSSYguy spell out clearly why this one is not; there is a news spike, and nothing more. WP:PERSISTENCE requires, well, persistence; widespread but brief geographic coverage is to be expected in this day and age of instant communications. A tragic accident, but does not clear the bar; if, in the future, something changes to establish notability, deletion is not forever. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:23, 8 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 03:45, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neha Ramu

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

Notable only for a single event. Claims such as "she is more intelligent than Stephen Hawking, Bill Gates and even Albert Einstein, who are all thought to have an IQ of 160" is not neutral and is highly biased (further, there is still disagreement over using IQ as an absolute measure of intelligence). There seems to be a list of high IQ people (of Mensa society), but again the list contains only people who are notable for other reasons as well. Propose to delete. -- Obloid cow (talk) 09:22, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - One of the source says "Neha scored 162 on the Cattell IIIB test, putting her within the top one per cent of people in the country," a spokesman for British Mensa said. Having top 1% of people in country certainly notable. This is not that next year she will be in Mensa list, She has scored 162 which is highest ever. Covered by UK and Indian media widely. If we say the claims are highly biased then both countries media has been biased towards these people and have something against like Stephen Hawking, Bill Gates and even Albert Einstein?. KuwarOnlineTalk 09:56, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: You are taking my comment out of context. I never said that the media is biased. But again I wouldn't consider any non-peer reviewed report (including those from popular news papers) as an authoritative source on how intelligent Stephen Hawking or Bill Gates is. Also, where does the 160 IQ figure come from? As far as I know, Einstein took no standardized IQ test. I doubt that the other two took one too. So this is just pure speculation. Moreover, this is just the result of a test conducted by a single private organization, Mensa. The top x% argument doesn't hold much water because of this. All that said, the article still fails inclusion because of WP:1E and WP:NOT#NEWS. -- Obloid cow (talk) 10:22, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - First thing is Mensa is not just small/unknown/unrecognized organization it is world largest and oldest organization. So the top x% is notable and recognized around the world. If you read references provided to this article carefully it says "Einstein never took an IQ test as none of the modern intelligence tests existed when he was alive, but experts believe he had an IQ of around 160.[1] Being in that 1% is certainly notable. KuwarOnlineTalk 11:04, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: First of all, it's important to understand that Mensa is not the only organization in the world who does standardized IQ tests. If IQ tests were something that was done only by Mensa, it would have been different. But that is not so, and countless universities around the world have psychologists who would be able to do that. Further, Mensa is just an "elite" club, no more relevant to psychometrics than the Flat Earth Society (which is old and the only one of its kind) is to geophysics. Being certified by Mensa is not recognizable in itself. Finally, all the articles says that the test used was the Cattell IIIB test. What about other tests like the Stanford-Binet test? Is Mensa a recognized authority in psychology? Do they have established psychometricians as members? -- Obloid cow (talk) 11:23, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Further, I would challenge that being in the "top 1% in the country" is notable per se. To put that in perspective, she's from India, which has 1.2 billion people. Therefore, the "top 1%" of India comprises approximately 12 million people. If you just want limit this to her new country -- the UK -- then she's still in a cohort of 650,000 people. Are you saying that ALL these people are inherently notable? Well, they aren't. They need to be notable for something other than that to set themselves apart from the millions of other 1%'ers. So far, we've not been shown that. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 19:58, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Please see the comment/reply provided to Uncle Milty. KuwarOnlineTalk 09:55, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete -Not a notable person. The article should be deleted quickly. On the basis of IQ tests, noone can compare himself/herself with the notable persons like the Albert Einstein. Notability depends on the contribution of a person for the social welfare. Albert Einstein solved the theory of relativity. What is the contribution of Neha Ramu in society? I did not find any notable work done by the Neha Ramu. This page should be deleted quickly. Jussychoulex (talk) 12:39, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would recommend to read WP:BIO which clearly says that "worthy of notice" – that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded". Getting score like she did is not something ordinary. It is not something average score, it is highest till date by any person. Its definitely "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded". Which is recognized by many media around the world. KuwarOnlineTalk 12:58, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Were are talking about person who is on Top. The score she got is highest till date. So she is not just in 1% of brilliant people, she is most brilliant person among them. Also the article got 8795 [37] views in just 8 days(since creation of this article) which is extra ordinary which actually means people searching for that person and got that many time of hits to this article. KuwarOnlineTalk 09:52, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Claims and certifications made by a single organisation who has no academic authority doesn't carry much weight. As long as none of the inclusion guidelines give any weightage to viewcounts, I don't see how that is relevant either. For instance, if I create an article giving directions to obtain recreational drugs in my city, I'm sure it would get a lot of hits, but would it be appropriate? -- Obloid cow (talk) 11:14, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:52, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:52, 7 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. Jenks24 (talk) 12:01, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Open-source enterprise architecture tools

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

This article exists primarily to advertise several EA tool vendors (albeit claiming to have an 'open source' or free version of their tool). This is clearly acknowledged at the start by saying "Some open source EA Tools are also free of charge". That is, some are not. One example states that it is a "low cost to entry solution" (i.e. not free) and another even freely acknowledges that the tool is "also available as an Enterprise Edition". There are advertising statements like "Customer references are mainly in ..." and "fulfils the needs of most Enterprise Architects and associated stakeholders".

The whole premise for this page is the baseless claim (without any citation) that "Traditionally, enterprise architecture tools are proprietary and have a reputation for being expensive to purchase, customise and run". Some commercial EA tools are free, many are in the low 3-figures per seat, and many are easier to customise than any of these 'open source' examples. Indeed, the providers of these 'open source' tools generate revenue by customising these purportedly free solutions.

And besides, most of the tools listed are not true open source in that the source code is not actually available. Kjas1970 (talk) 08:20, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 7 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. Keeper | 76 00:27, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Faysal Shayesteh

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

Contested prod on the grounds that he has played international football. Cannot find any indication he has. A technical pass of WP:NFOOTY as he has played one professional match but a clear WP:GNG failure. May well become notable in future but not now. Fenix down (talk) 08:43, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment NFOOTY is not relevant. It is always trumped by GNG. This player has played one senior game. Had he had several seasons playing in non-professional leagues and then made the step up to a professional league, it would be reasonable to assume that there would be sufficient sources to pass GNG and NFOOTY. In this instance, this is a player who has played one pro game following an unsourced youth career. Please indicate where substantial reliable sources for the player exist? If he can be shown to have played internationally then that would be something I would be prepared to accept as making him essentially notable. Fenix down (talk) 13:02, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:47, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:47, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:47, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:47, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets WP:NFOOTY. Has played in a fully professional league.I was add source but here again :

http://www.sportal.bg/statistics_player.php?season=88&champ=1&team=46&player=11921 - He played one match last week for bulgarian A group team . http://www.bra.weltfussball.com/spieler_profil/faysal-shayesteh/ - Here and one on english K.belev (talk) 16:24, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As I said above, I have no problem with the notion that he passes NFOOTY. The problem is that NFOOTY means nothing if he cant meet GNG. One game played does not equal general notability. You need to show that there are substantial reliable sources documenting this player. Fenix down (talk) 16:28, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - http://etar1924.com/?p=2465 - Official website of Etar.He made him 2nd proffesional app,there was 4 website's where it's confirm that he is a player and have played in team.I'm trying to make him profile and in transfermarkt,but there thay clearly don't care about eter..I just don't get why a proffesional player page will be deleted...
Comment - Because being a professional player is not enough, he has to fulfill GNG as has been mentioned several times now. 1 appearance or 2 is not relevant, the fact that he is a player is not relevant, you need to find indepth, substantial, reliable sources. So far there are none in the article and no indication any exist. Fenix down (talk) 17:48, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Players who have appeared, and managers who have managed, in a fully professional league, will generally be regarded as notable.Simione001 (talk) 22:54, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, they are generally regarded as notable, not exclusively. NFOOTY does not trump GNG. This guy has played in two games, one for 2 minutes, the other for 23 minutes. This does not make him inherently notable as NFOOTY clearly observes with the qualifier "generally". Please indicate where there are substantial, reliable sources as per GNG. Fenix down (talk) 08:24, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - meets NFOOTBALL - as he is early in his career it is not surprising he doesn't quite meet GNG yet, but we should allow the benefit of the doubt. If he still doesn't meet GNG in a few years then we can re-consider. GiantSnowman 18:51, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NFOOTBALL is not relevant when a player does not meet GNG. Project guidelines do not trump main wikipedia notability rules. Also subjects do not have articles created for them and then "left for a few years" to see if they become notable. As an admin you really ought to be aware of this by now. The very fact you had to use this as an argument adds further weight to the notion this player is not yet notable. Fenix down (talk) 07:07, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Seems to be WP:TOOSOON. To respond to GiantSnowman, I think the opposite scenario is best - to delete for now then re-consider inclusion in a few years. We need reliable sources to make a decent article out of it. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 07:37, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I generally agree with Fenix down in this case, 1 or 2 appearances does not confer notability. Instead of creating articles on footballer once they first enter the field in a professional match, we should try to make the article establish notability - i.e. explain why this particular footballer is notable. I recently PROD'ed his team-mate Mehmet Mehmet, which got recreated once he got his first appearance, with the article having no real claim of notability except that one appearnace. My main concern in this case, is that if we decide to delete this article, when would it be appropiate to re-make it? When he has played 5 matches, 10 matches? I say we should give the creator some time to improve the article, and if the subject still fails WP:GNG in a couple of months, we could nominate it for deletion again. Mentoz86 (talk) 11:23, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - You cant just make up your own rules. NFOOTBALL is pretty clear. I recently nominated Andy Higgins (footballer born 1993) for deletion and result was no consensus. Not sure how that happened.Simione001 (talk) 11:53, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is it me you are talking to? I am not making up my own rules, but WP:NSPORTS which WP:NFOOTY is a part of is pretty clear: Please note that the failure to meet these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. Mentoz86 (talk) 12:25, 13 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 merge to List of French words and phrases used by English speakers. Keeper | 76 03:52, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tout court

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

This is a dictionary definition (WP:DICDEF), and it's not clear from a brief Google search as to whether it has the potential to become an encyclopedia article about the use of this term of art in philosophy. In its current (and likely final) form, it's more suited to Wiktionary, where it is already listed.  Sandstein  08:32, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete It's a dictionary definition. The term doesn't have a philosophical meaning beyond the general definition (I can't find it in any dictionaries/encyclopedias of philosophy). --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:25, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:43, 7 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. Jenks24 (talk) 11:58, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Hay (Harvard Project)

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

This BLP is a coatrack to talk about “Harvard Project” which is essentially one event. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:23, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:40, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:40, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:40, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:40, 7 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. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:07, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

South Dakota Rock and Roll Music Association

edit
South Dakota Rock and Roll Music Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Presumed lack of notability. No sources found in a short search. Spiesr (talk) 03:52, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Dakota-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 16:49, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:21, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:21, 19 February 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) 02:19, 20 February 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, LlamaAl (talk) 00:07, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) -- Patchy1 REF THIS BLP 08:32, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kriszta Doczy

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

Contested PROD. Non-notable article; fails WP:GNG and has been tagged with these issues pretty much since it was created. SudoGhost 13:39, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 00:31, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 11 February 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, LlamaAl (talk) 00:09, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see a single reference that makes this subject notable, and a local puffery piece in what looks like an alt-weekly paper isn't a very strong reliable source. I'm not saying it's an unacceptable source, and I did not say it was unreliable, but if that's the only notability the subject has received then the article is not notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article. Articles require multiple reliable third-party sources, and even with that reference it's a very weak claim to notability and I don't see that its anywhere near meeting WP:GNG. "Most articles on Wikipedia" do not rely solely on local alternative newspapers, so that's really not a good argument to try to make, because it's not an accurate comparison. The National Library below she interviewed Richard Foreman (I'm assuming it's the same one), and interviewers do not become notable in the course of doing their interview any more than newspaper authors become notable because they wrote papers, even if that article were to be archived elsewhere. - SudoGhost 10:23, 23 February 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) 02:17, 20 February 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, LlamaAl (talk) 00:08, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • That source certainly could verify information, but it doesn't create notability as defined by Wikipedia, so how do you figure that makes the subject notable? The subject fails WP:GNG, a single local alt-weekly source doesn't create notability where there is none. - SudoGhost 14:23, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment National magazine published monthly - not alt weekly but 'Real Time ... are assisted by the Australian Government through the Australia Council, its arts funding and advisory body.(and) supported by the Visual Arts and Craft Strategy, an initiative of the Australian, state and territory governments (along with) the NSW Government through Trade & Investment - Arts NSW.' Paul foord (talk) 15:09, 7 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) 18:07, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kenny Clutch

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:CRIME. reddogsix (talk) 02:51, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - While the incident is tragic, he is clearly not notable per WP:BIO and WP:CRIME. He was merely an "aspiring rapper".[40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49]. Relatively speaking, he was unknown in the rap community and therefore cannot qualify as notable under any of the 12 criteria for WP:MUSICBIO. He made a YouTube video and was in the process of trying to establish himself in the industry. He just happened to be the victim in a movie-style drive-by shooting in the middle of the Las Vegas Strip, which is why there has been so much media coverage. When the story first broke, many media reports didn't even mention him in the lead - the focus was solely on the way the shooting happened - and referred to him by his real name, Ken (or Kenny) Cherry. --76.189.111.199 (talk) 06:09, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:EVENT says "A rule of thumb for creating a Wikipedia article is whether the event is of lasting, historical significance". Do you really think that the shooting of a non-notable, virtually-unknown rapper is of lasting, historical significance? --76.189.111.199 (talk) 17:54, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The event received significant coverage; BIO1E applies to the victim. Note I stated I am not saying whether the event will receive continued coverage; I do not have a crystal ball to know if it will be the case or not.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:53, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi RCLC. :) Exactly... we don't know. But we need to know. I didn't cite BIO1E; I cited WP:EVENT. At this moment, we of course cannot determine that this event will have lasting, historical significance (although I'm sure most reasonable people will say it probably never will). And significant coverage, which you cited, is simply a section of the general notability guidelines, which are superseded by the more important WP:EVENT guidelines, which are specific to events. This is explained in its Background section. At this point, it's simply a news story getting a lot of coverage because of its movie-style nature and ___location (a drive-by shooting of an aspiring rapper in the heart of the Las Vegas strip, resulting in the crash of several vehicles). If the story should get to the point where editors determine that the event is clearly historically important, then by all means we should have an article for it. I appreciate your balanced input in this discussion. And I really like your name, even though I have no idea what it means. :P --76.189.111.199 (talk) 22:18, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:NEWSEVENT. "A rule of thumb for creating a Wikipedia article is whether the event is of lasting, historical significance". --76.189.111.199 (talk) 17:54, 1 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 17:30, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Macht

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

I can't find the requisite independent third party RS coverage of this person. Just doesn't appear to rise to requisite level to meet our notability standards. Does have a good number of uncredited IMDB entries, but I don't think that quite cuts it. Open to hearing otherwise, if that is the case or others find more convincing RS coverage. Created by an SPA. Tagged for notability since 2009, the day it was created. Epeefleche (talk) 06:38, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:42, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:42, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:37, 13 February 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, LlamaAl (talk) 01:23, 20 February 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, LlamaAl (talk) 00:09, 27 February 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 7. Snotbot  t • c »  06:46, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - There is one piece counting towards GNG in the footnotes, the other is probably self-supplied. Career accomplishment does not seem sufficient in and of itself for this to get the benefit of the doubt in a close call on GNG, so a couple more independently published sources dealing substantially with the subject would seem to be necessary here. Every person has a story, yes, but not every personal story is encyclopedia-worthy. If a couple more things pop up, then a GNG pass is called for, otherwise, a deletion... Carrite (talk) 17:15, 7 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 redirect to J. League. No sourced content, so nothing to merge though it will still be there if anyone wants to see it. Jenks24 (talk) 11:57, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

J. League contracts

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

No indication this topic has been covered by independent reliable sources. C679 14:48, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. C679 14:49, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:45, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:45, 19 February 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, LlamaAl (talk) 01:25, 20 February 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, LlamaAl (talk) 00:09, 27 February 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. Jenks24 (talk) 11:56, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Isaac Newton: The Last Magician

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

Article about a seemingly non-notable film. Evidence that the film exists, but insufficient available sources to establish notability. Fails WP:NFILM - MrX 00:27, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete As far as I can tell this hasn't broadcast. It's mentioned in recent BBC press releases[55][56] but that's it. There's also some uncertainty about the title: one press release calls it
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article could be recreated if the show is broadcast and it gets some reviews (which would be likely). But right now it fails notability guidelines. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:59, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Delete without prejudice this one-sentence stub about a made-for-TV docu-drama about Isaac Newton[57] by director Renny Bartlett... apparently to be part of the BBC Two mini-series Genius of Invention which itself is a collection of separate films about British inventors. With the involved actors listing their participation on their resumes, this one is apparently completed... but as the actual name of this one has not yet been released, we can suppose it is now in post-production. Point here is that this one-of-the-series has not (yet) aired and has not (yet) received the requisite coverage in reliable sources. It is simply TOO SOON for an article. When it finally airs and if it receives coverage we can certianly allow a more comprehensive article to be recreated. There is almost enough to consider an article about the parent film series Genius of Invention,[58][59] but not about this one portion. Okay with userfying the one sentence back to its author. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:11, 27 February 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 7. Snotbot  t • c »  06:44, 7 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 00:22, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Darcy Sterling

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

Darcy Sterling has not been the subject of multiple third party press mentions. If you look through the citations lists, many are in Go Magazine, an unreliable source to which Darcy is a contributor. She has a direct relationship with the editorial staff. In fact, some of the sources are just articles that Darcy wrote in Go Magazine. Go is hardly an independent source. If her claim to fame is being a contributor to a small magazine, then Wikipedia should be filled with articles on thousands of freelance writers. I'm not opposed to the idea that Darcy will be notable one day, but right now she is not. Simply put, this article is promotional in nature, was created by a paid, COI editor, and should be deleted. CitizenNeutral (talk) 19:11, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Additionally, in the edit history, the editor that created this article makes the case that Darcy should be compared to Dr. Phil. I find this to be a very strange comparison, as one is a national talk show host, and the other runs a small practice in NYC. CitizenNeutral (talk) 19:17, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Why are the magazines that have published Sterling's column "unreliable"? GO is a free lesbian magazine distributed in 25 US cities, and Psychology Today has a circulation of nearly 300,000, along with over 150,000 Twitter followers. Unless there's something I'm not aware of, I don't see why having your column published in a magazine means it is not an independent source. I created this entry and feel the subject's notability is sufficient, and that the entry is neutral in tone. I've revised it slightly, in an attempt to clear it of anything that could be construed as promotional.--Bernie44 (talk) 22:56, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:59, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:59, 19 February 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, LlamaAl (talk) 01:19, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 21 February 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, LlamaAl (talk) 00:11, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sufficient coverage by reliable independent sources to establish notability.--Staberinde (talk) 20:43, 28 February 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) 18:44, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Butera

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

Non-notable chain of supermarkets, also WP:NOTADIRECTORY JayJayWhat did I do? 02:03, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

this search suggest that there may be enough content for an article, but it is mostly behind paywalls.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:55, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:20, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:20, 19 February 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, LlamaAl (talk) 00:05, 20 February 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, LlamaAl (talk) 00:12, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The article is promotionally written and the list of locations should be deleted straight away, but it seems to me that a chain supermarket that has been in business for 45 years may be sufficiently notable. I have found a couple of sources to support this, for example this and this. - MrX 01:18, 27 February 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 7. Snotbot  t • c »  06:25, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:ORG does not appear to be satisfied. Just having 9 grocery stores does not convey inherent notability. To keep the article, what is needed is for someone to point ou,t at a minimum, multiple reliable and independent sources with significant coverage. The Newsbank cite is full of "lady arrested for stealing catfood," "store owner dies" and tons of other trivial local news coverage. Quoting WP:ORG: "Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, national, or international source is necessary." Edison (talk) 18:55, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per arguments by TonyTheTiger and Edison. There is some news coverage, but it's largely trivial, thus failing WP:ORGDEPTH. - MrX 19:16, 8 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. Jenks24 (talk) 11:55, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sleeper candidate

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

Original research, synthesis, on an obscure term. Orange Mike | Talk 05:36, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:35, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I am with the nominator that this is an obscure term. The only thing possible here is a dictionary definition or an unsourced original essay — the latter of which is what we are now seeing. Carrite (talk) 17:42, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NEOLOGISM, which is very clear what kind of sourcing is needed for neologisms. Please excuse the long quotation from that policy, but I feel it is necessary so that other editors understand the requirements. Yworo (talk) 18:07, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • "To support an article about a particular term or concept we must cite what reliable secondary sources, such as books and papers, say about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term. An editor's personal observations and research (e.g. finding blogs, books, and articles that use the term rather than are about the term) are insufficient to support articles on neologisms because this may require analysis and synthesis of primary source material to advance a position, which is explicitly prohibited by the original research policy."
  • Delete or create Glossary of political terms and add it there. There's not quite enough about the equivalent "stealth candidate"[60][61][62] to support an article. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:21, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. & others. Google search produces no indication of significant coverage in reliable sources.--JayJasper (talk) 17:10, 9 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) 18:49, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Heather Timmons

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

Does not seem notable enough for inclusion. Sesamevoila (talk) 12:33, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:JOURNALIST....William 12:57, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 27 February 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) 04:59, 7 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) 18:50, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan Ramniceanu

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

Every "reference" is to Râmniceanu's own website. By definition, that fails the "independent coverage" test of WP:GNG. If the single-purpose account who created this promotional piece wants it to be kept, some kind of evidence of notability outside the artist's site will have to be presented. - Biruitorul Talk 14:59, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A reference does not have to be online to be valid. The references appear to establish notability. The article may require rewriting to remove a possible copyright violation. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:05, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • They may "appear" to establish notability, but that's not a terribly convincing metric. This, for instance, is from an exhibition catalogue, which is not exactly an independent source.
    • And yes, I'd say we'd need a rewrite - the article as it stands is an exact copy of this. Even if the single-purpose account who created the article owns the text (as he claims, and which wouldn't surprise me), we're not here to promote people or allow them to promote themselves. If he's in fact notable, we need a text written by someone other than the man himself. But his notability remains unproven. In-depth, independent coverage remains elusive. - Biruitorul Talk 21:56, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This shows he might be notable, however, the mentioned TV and radio shows don't link to real videos or files. I've removed the CSD tag per the talk page and WP:AGF, but I too think it should be rewritten. The subject seems to be marginally notable, see this review (Arta - Revista de arte vizuale) or some hits at G-books. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 09:10, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dear Gentlemen, I thank you for your contributions and would like to clarify a few points if I may:
      • To follow-up on Vejvančický's last contribution, most of the TV shows mentioned on this page are actually hosted on this page or on this page.
      • All citations in this article are extracted from texts by art critics and/or art historians (most of them being "notable" enough to have a wikipedia page) that is to say experts highly knowledgeable in the subject and independent from their subject/the artist: as such, they shall be considered as highly reliable sources. Their authors are not "single-purpose" or "single-artist" authors - To pick up on what was said by Eastmain, a reference does not have to be online to be valid and I see no objective reason which could explain why an article written by an art critic or historian should be less reliable as any text published somewhere else. In the same vein, I see no objective reason why this reference should be granted more credit than any of the other 26 references which are available here (which are just a selection of publications). Reading your contribution, I cannot help but think that things would have been very different if these very same texts had been published in online magazines -- anyone is free to disagree with the points of view expressed by their authors, but I see no reason to challenge their independency just because they happen to be "hosted" on the artist's website and/or were published in printed exhibition catalogues -- the artist (or the gallery, as the case may be) will pay to have a catalogue published but does NOT pay art critics for their contributions. At the end of the day, what matters most is who said what - which implies obviously to read the articles - and not only to compute the number of hyperlinks and/or google rankings.
      • My understanding is that search engine statistics are not a suitable criteria of the "notability" see here. Please correct me if I'm wrong but if we disregard a content because of its support (e.g. has not been published online), we run the risk to place too much confidence into search engine statistics: in other words, online popularity is not the same as the concept of "notability". SEO has little to do with notability.... It has to do with technical abilities.
      • Lastly, let me tell you I'm happy that you jumped in: drafting articles about living personalities is a difficult exercise indeed. The balance is hard to strike and this might be the reason why so many articles about living artists on Wikipedia are unfortunately still confined to a list of exhibitions that fails to give any color to their artwork and life. So I thank you for considering to redraft this article - I guess this is what Wikipedia is about. Gatsbylemagnifique (talk) 20:15, 28 February 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) 04:51, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Kudos on the artist bio to the article creator. This article's subject appears to pass WP:Artist. All other issues are simply not grounds for deletion. There are outstanding CPVIO issues with the pictures but I will be glad to help sort them out via OTRS if the artist agrees to release them via CS. Regarding the sourcing - it is patently obvious that these can be improved. Just because the artist web site hosts/preserves materials does not render them self-published. Generally we consider a person an authority on himself - the issue in such cases is WP:N. However these are only a future possibility since no specific neutrality issues have been raised here BO | Talk 15:17, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - highly self-promotional article that will need re-writing. However, if he's been the subject of several lengthy TV programmes (hard to prove) and reviewed in România Literară, he may just about meet WP:GNG. Because his activities were pre-internet, sources are likely to be offline, though I can see no book references at all ...which you'd expect if he is as important as he says! Sionk (talk) 22:32, 12 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 both Procedural Keep and Withdrawal by nominator. Non admin closure by Eduemoni↑talk↓ 02:24, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A. W. Kjellstrand

edit
A. W. Kjellstrand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
E.O. Brown (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Quince Banbury (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Guy C. Omer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
George Carlson (American football) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Elmer Schaake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Ray D. Hahn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Hal Collins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Phil Miller (American football) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Keith Rasmussen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Van Hollaway (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Tony Johnson (American football coach) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Jamie Cruce (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm going to mass nominate this article along with every single article under the template Template:Bethany_Terrible_Swedes_football_coach_navbox, the reason is quite simple, this article along with the others are about a football coach which article may not grow beyond stub level, this is not a reason for deletion, tho, many of them are not notable per GNG or even per specific criteria WP:NCOLLATH, athletes and coaches from colleges and high schools are notable only if they have received, as individuals, substantial and prolonged coverage that is independent of the subject and clearly goes beyond WP:ROUTINE coverage by which the majority of them fail to achieve. Eduemoni↑talk↓ 04:41, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - There are few exceptions in the template which are in fact notable, if the outcome votes something else than delete, at least consider merge, they are worth only a mention or a table regarding their acts, deeds, when they take the position and so on. Eduemoni↑talk↓ 04:53, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not going to comment yet on the rest of these, but Elmer Schaake should be removed right off the bat. He played in the NFL and was the head baseball coach at the University of Kansas. A quick Google search turns up a lot on him. Jweiss11 (talk) 07:02, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Paul McDonald (talk) 12:30, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. Paul McDonald (talk) 12:30, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:31, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All - I don't like the blind nomination of an entire category of Wikipedia articles, which indicates little or no adherence to our strong recommendations set out in WP:BEFORE. Moreover, the fact is that would erase an entire collegiate coaching history for one school only under only the flimsiest of pretexts, more or less "I don't think any of these are notable," although without WP:BEFORE being followed for each, there is no way of telling. The nominator is guessing and so am I — there is probably sufficient published sourcing out there for each, Keep them all... If the nominator feels strongly enough about this matter to follow WP:BEFORE for each an then to nominate those seeming to fail GNG one by one, I would be amenable to putting similar effort into each defense. Carrite (talk) 17:49, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural Keep, without prejudice to renominate article subjects individually. This is obviously a mix of notable and non-notable persons who require individual AfDs to determine their notability and suitability for stand-alone Wikipedia articles. At least one of these subjects (Elmer Schaake) played in the National Football League (see Pro-Football-Reference.com) and is entitled to a presumption of notability per WP:NGRIDIRON. Mass AfDs should only be used when the nominator editor has done his homework and has a very high degree of confidence that all subjects are either non-notable or violate other WP policies and guidelines. Such is not the case here. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:25, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, with a comment. The procedural keep !votes above are correct, but I appreciate the nominator's attempt to address the common issue here. In that connection, however, I'd note that while the Bethany Terrible Swedes are now a small-time program, they have a long football history with two College Hall of Fame coaches. Thus, this history of the University of Oklahoma comments that Bennie Owen's decision to move from Bethany to OU in 1905 was "one of the greatest mysteries in the story of Oklahoma football" and that his first OU team was "mediocre by Bethany standards". I don't think it would serve the encyclopedia to delete any of these articles; if it's ultimately concluded that some of them don't show enough potential to be maintained on their own, a better result would be to merge those to List of Bethany Terrible Swedes head football coaches and use their content to develop that list article. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:55, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural keep per Dirtlawyer. Also, interesting comments by Arxiloxos. There are a number of similar programs which today are small-time, but previously were important football teams. University of Chicago is a similar example. Due diligence needs to be completed before nominating an entire category for deletion. Cbl62 (talk) 19:59, 7 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. Jenks24 (talk) 11:54, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wongu University of Oriental Medicine and Acupuncture

edit
Wongu University of Oriental Medicine and Acupuncture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Although this organisation calls itself a "university", it is not accredited anywhere, except that it is "accepted" by the "Nevada State Board of Oriental Medicine". This is an obscure organisation that according to their own website have no manned front desk, only a voice message on their phone line. No independent sources. Does not meet WP:ORG. Randykitty (talk) 21:43, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 28 February 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) 04:28, 7 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) 11:54, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Teresa Maryańska

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

This author may satisfy criterion 1 of Wikipedia:Notability (academics) if Google Scholar is used for citation information (WoS gives an h-index of 4 NOTE:User:Msrasnw gets 12 - see discussion). No other criterion seems applicable. However, the article seems doomed to remain a pseudo-biography because so little biographical information is available. In the spirit of the discussion in pseudo-biographies, it could be said that Maryańska is mainly known for one event, collectively the three Polish-Mongolian expeditions to the Gobi Desert and the dinosaur finds that came out of them. All the information on her is related to that. So perhaps there should be an article on the expeditions and her name should redirect to that. RockMagnetist (talk) 04:09, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Withdrawn by nominator" - I think the supporters, particularly Msrasnw in their most recent addition, have successfully demonstrated notability by providing sources for the contribution of Maryańska to this work. RockMagnetist (talk) 15:42, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:30, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:30, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:30, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Anthony J. Martin's (2006) Introduction to the Study of Dinosaurs Wiley-Blackwell - describes H Osmólska and T Maryańska as still being considered to be "Poland's leading experts on dinosaurs" (page 78). I will look for more. (Msrasnw (talk) 18:55, 7 March 2013 (UTC))[reply]

*Comment - in the spirit of the discussion in pseudo-biographies, it could be said that Maryańska is mainly known for one event, collectively the three Polish-Mongolian expeditions to the Gobi Desert and the dinosaur finds that came out of it. All the information on her is related to that. So perhaps there should be an article on the expeditions and her name should redirect to that. RockMagnetist (talk) 19:19, 7 March 2013 (UTC) *Delete An h-index of 4 is miles away from what we generally consider notable here. Most of her publications are in a rather obscure journal, so the low level of citations 'even for this relatively low citation field) is not too surprising. As the nom says, no evidence of meeting any other criteria under WP:PROF or WP:BIO. --Randykitty (talk) 19:38, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: When I look in Web of Science Knowledge I get a h-index of 12 which seems to me enough to allow a pass of WP:Prof. I think it is possible that the WoS H-index =4 quoted above may be substantially wrong and missleading! Could you check again. Halszka Osmólska has a H-index on WosK of 15 which would also seem enough to allow a pass. This article (Dodson, Peter. "Polish Women in the Gobi–In Loving Memory of Halszka Osmólska (1930-2008)." AMERICAN PALEONTOLOGIST 16.3 (2008): 30.) seems to indicate, like Martin (2006, above) that both Osmólska and Maryańska are both highly notable! (Msrasnw (talk) 19:58, 7 March 2013 (UTC))[reply]
    • Thanks for the citation; I'll add it to the article. I have tried a few different searches: one one "Maryanska T*"; or "Maryanska" and then refining it using either "Paleontology" for category or "Poland" for Countries/Territories. In all cases I get 7 publications and an h-index of 4. RockMagnetist (talk) 20:51, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • However, your results (as posted at User:Msrasnw/TM) seem more in line with the Google Scholar search, so maybe there is something wrong with my interface. I'll modify my rationale. Note, however, that isn't really my reason for deletion. RockMagnetist (talk) 21:05, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply RockMagnetist and Randykitty were right and I was wrong about WoS. My WoS linked to Web of Knowledge via All databases and I was reporting that! The Wok H-index of 12 seems fine to me..... coupled with the descriptions of her in other soources seesm to indicate notability to me. Sorry about my error, lack of precision and rush to judegment. (Msrasnw (talk) 21:22, 7 March 2013 (UTC))[reply]
  • Weak Keep now that GS index is established for a not particularly well cited field. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:25, 7 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep: I think the GS h-index of around 14 and the Web of Knowledge H-index of 12 in this low cited field and the claim by Martin (2006) that she is still being considered to be "Poland's leading experts on dinosaurs" (page 78) and Dodson's (2008) discussion all indicate she is sufficiently notable for an article. I also think that our encylopedia's use of her as a reference in lots of articles [63] lends to support to keeping the article on her (but I recognise this is not one of our criteria). I think a further article on the Polish-mongolian palaeontological expeditions 1967-1971 might be nice too. (Msrasnw (talk) 23:04, 7 March 2013 (UTC)) PS: The Smithsonian has a brief note on her here [64] where it has the following description: "A prominent Polish paleontologist, Maryanska was involved in the important Polish-Mongolian Palaeontological Expeditions of the 1960s and 1970s. From these explorations came a wealth of new data on dinosaurs, and Maryanska wrote several important papers on these specimens. These included ankylosaurs, pachycephalosaurs, ceratopsians, and theropods. She has named several species of dinosaurs, including Bagaceratops, Prenocephale, and Tarchia." This is a listing of Who's Who in Dinosaur Research. Also Polish Post has released a nice series of stamps to celebrate the Gobi trips and their finds. One of the stamps illustrates Saichania (Mongolian meaning "beautiful one") "described by doc. Teresa Maryańska from the Museum of Earth of PANing" [65] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Msrasnw (talk • contribs) [reply]
  • Keep I have struck my earlier !vote. This is a strange case. When I search in the Web of Science, I get 7 hits with an h-index of 4, like the nom. When I search using "all databases" in WoK, I still get 7 hits, but now the h-index is 5 (a result nobody else seems to get). Of course, in principle an h-index should be independent of which database one searches. To get the "real" h, it would be necessary to look at all individual citations from whatever database you get them and then do the calculation based on that. In practice, we let the databases do this themselves. I'm not a fan of GS (I have a publication myself which I know has never been cited and it gets 30 hist on GS...), although it seems to be improving. Whatever is the case, it's a fact that all databases render potentially different results: GS and Scopus have wider coverage than WoS, potentially resulting in higher citation counts, but Scopus only goes back to 1996 and authors with publications before that date will be underestimated. It looks like we should only compare citation data if they have been derived from the same database. In the present case, I think the citation analysis is to uncertain to give us much guidance. However, the other sources that have been found (Smithsonian) and the fact that she has described several new species, tip the balance in favor of a "keep". --Randykitty (talk) 12:42, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Yes, this is a well-known and confounding problem. GS includes "citations" from non-peer-reviewed work, so its numbers are almost always significantly higher. WoS is the most complete in terms of journals, though it also has a few problems. CS people don't like that it does not index conference publications, which are important in their field, though not in most other fields. Moreover, what an individual searcher has access to depends upon what level of subscription his/her institution pays for. Agricola44 (talk) 16:41, 8 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete. I think we have to be a little careful of "grading on the curve" here because lots of paleontologists listed in WP do, in fact, have large numbers of citations, for example Neil Shubin's list is 351, 336, 163, 115, 114... and Jack Sepkoski's is 529, 456, 375, 296, 263... My check of WoS concurs with Randykitty: 7 papers having citations of 35, 15, 9, 9, 4, 0, 0 (h-index 4). I agree this seems strange, but the explanation seems to be that most of her papers were published in Acta Palaeontologica Polonica, which WoS' impact factor database shows is not even in the top third of paleontology-specific journals (and this doesn't even count the "general science" journals, like PNAS, Science, or Nature, where really significant findings are typically reported). In other words, most of her work was not published among what seem to be regarded as the better journals in her field. Agricola44 (talk) 16:41, 8 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]
    • Keep Impact Factor (IF) of Acta Palaeontologica Polonica is invariably high; the latest data for 2011 JCR indicate the IF = 1.488 which gives the journal the 17th position out of 49 periodicals ranked in the Paleontology category worldwide [66]. Kmicic (talk) 15:41, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Cannot !vote twice, so this second "keep" has been struck. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 16:41, 11 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment As the creator, I do not intend to speak pro or con. If I recall correctly, I created this article because it was a redlink in a potential FA. I *am* somewhat concerned that indicies may be misleading, because her early work was done on the Soviet side of the Iron Curtain, but I honestly don't know how much of a problem that would have been in the 1970s-early 1980s; general-audience dinosaur books of that era were full of the news from Mongolia, so specialists should have been at least as well-informed. J. Spencer (talk) 01:22, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. Given the above concerns about low citations, could you kindly furnish some supporting evidence for your claim? Thanks so much, Agricola44 (talk) 14:44, 9 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment I'm curious, too. I have heard many criticisms of the h-index, but this is the first time that I hear that it is not applicable to a certain nationality of researchers... --Randykitty (talk) 15:25, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm curious why you're so curious. H-index is irrelevant for non-English researchers, e.g. from Poland. You may read this article [67]. Prof. Maryańska is one of the most important Polish paleontologist. This is beyond doubt. I suppose that Anthony J. Martin from Department of Environmental Studies at Emory University is better authority in this question. Trying judging scientific achievements of prof. Maryańska by two Wikipedians, who based on irrelevant H-index, is OR. Kmicic (talk) 15:38, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, but that is hogwash. I agree that the h-index is less pertinent in fields like, say, the humanities, but just sweeping it away as "not applicable for non-English researchers" is rubbish. I'm a non-English researcher working in a non-English speaking country and the h-index really plays a big role in my annual evaluations here. And for all you know, some of the Wikipedians here may be paleontologists that are even more famous than Dr. Maryańsk... --Randykitty (talk) 15:46, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hogwash is a situation, when Wikipedians try to judge someone scientific achievements using h-index instead of using citing sources, which said that prof. Maryańska is one of the most important Polish paleontologist. We are not talking about other paleontologists, so I don't know why you're talking about Wikipedians-paleontologists. Ok, h-index may play a role in annual evaluations, but it doesn't mean that h-index is relevant for non-English researchers. Kmicic (talk) 15:56, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can accept certain criticisms of the h-index, it certainly has its weaknesses. But it is as applicable (or non-applicable) to non-English researchers as to English researchers. --Randykitty (talk) 16:03, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm afraid I don't read Polish and it would be very helpful if you could furnish a translation of Kielan-Jaworowska's testimony. As far as I can tell, Maryanska's name is mentioned only once in that document in this sentence: "Wœród opracowañ dinozaurów szczególn1 wartoœæ maj1 prace Halszki Osmólskiej i Teresy Maryañskiej." As for the h-index, I'm not arguing so much on it, but rather on the total number of citations over her career, ~70, which is low. I agree with Randykitty: I don't think one can exempt a citation/h-index/publication-impact argument based on nationality. Agricola44 (talk) 17:30, 9 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment - so much emphasis on notability! If anyone could find a few biographical details such as birth date - or even where she has worked for most of her life - I would support keeping the article. Otherwise, another approach would be to create Paleontological expeditions to Mongolia and redirect there; the article "Asiatic dinosaur rush" could be the basis of an interesting WP article. RockMagnetist (talk) 16:35, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • In English Wikipedia there are more than 40,000 articles about living people which don't contain date of birth. No birth date isn't argument for deleting article. Dr hab. Maryańska worked for many years in Muzeum Ziemi PAN. [68]. Kmicic (talk) 16:42, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral Sorry for changing yet again, but based on the discussion above and on Agricola44's arguments I have struck my "keep" !vote and change to neutral... --Randykitty (talk) 09:23, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The disputants seem not to understand how h-index works. First of all, WoS index bases ONLY on publications on the JCR list, which comprises almost exclusively English journals, so the point about language bias is very relevant. Second of all, h-index is not a good measure of academic notability at all, simply because a person who writes one extremely important, breakthrough and famous book, quoted 400 times (h-index=1) is more notable than somebody with 20 papers, of which each is cited 20 times (h-index=20). Speaking of books, they do not count AT ALL in WoS h-index measure, as I hope you realize. I recommend checking Zygmunt Bauman h-index in WoS to see how useful this measure is as the main criterion of notability ;) (Side note: I am not an expert in this field and I have no idea about notability of this person, but I simply see the argumentation for deletion as ostensibly flawed; and also since there are reliable sources explicitly stating that the described person is an outstanding scholar in her field, I believe that this discussion is moot). Pundit|utter 10:54, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • A further note worrying about the use of Web of Science in this case: I think web of science does not seem to be including some things which might be important in this case. For example using Google Scholar - Maryanska's third most cited thing (68 cites) is this one Maryanska, T, and H. Osmólska. "Protoceratopsidae (Dinosauria) of Asia." Palaeontologia Polonica 33 (1975): 133-181. This doesn't seem to be noticed by Web of Science. However it is included in Web of Knowledge. Web of Knowledge says it has been cited 58 times. The articles citing this include many that are included in Web of Science with high citation scores themselves. (I think JJ Sepkoski mentioned above also cites Maryanska!). I think it seems to me WoS not including Palaeontologia Polonica might be biasing our discussion. I think it is possible this kind of bias might be a systematic one in which none US/UK or western journals (and people having published in them) are not so well included by some commercial citation statistics producers. The Web of Knowledge seems to include more and its
WoK H-index is 12 includes the following: 67, 58, 58, 39 39, 32, 21, 19, 15, 15, 14, 13 ..... with a total of 400+ citations. (Msrasnw (talk) 11:25, 10 March 2013 (UTC))[reply]
  • Comment Actually, WoS and the JCR do include a fair amount of non-English journals (and if I understand correctly, Palaeontologia Polonica is published in English); the Acta Palaeontologica Polonica, for example is included in the SCI (and with a very good impact factor at that). However, if a journal is not often cited, it won't get included in these indices. "Not too often cited" implies, of course, that these journals rarely if ever publish important breakthroughs and researchers, from whatever country, usually try to get their more important results into outlets that have higher visibility. Apart from that, I don't think that anybody here is arguing that we should decide notability solely on the h-index. A high h-index almost certainly indicates notability, but the opposite is not true. Looking at total citations (not an absolute criteria either), 400 citations is not really all that much either, even for a field like this. So I remain undecided and I propose that we stop discussing the merits/demerits of the h-index as this is not the place for that discussion. --Randykitty (talk) 11:35, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Yes, concur: the "h-index people" are beating a strawman here. There are now several observations that her total number of citations over a very long (>30 year) career is not very high, even if there is some disagreement on the precise value of this number. Anyone familiar with the "gamesmanship" of research knows that papers are normally submitted to the most prestigious journal the submitter believes will have some probability of accepting a paper. This symbiotic relationship is why "big papers" are published in "big journals" (Science, Nature, et al) ... unless there are some other mitigating circumstances here, which nobody seems to be claiming yet. Maryanska evidently published most of her work in a 2nd-tier disciplinary journal (yes, Acta Pal. Pol. is indexed by WoS and, yes, its impact factor is in the middle third of disciplinary paleo journals). These observations, by themselves, are not a sufficient indicator of notability. Matters would change if indeed there are other notable experts that have called her work significant, or noted her contributions in some other way. Kmicic asserts above that such a testimonial exists, but the source is in the Polish language, which so far as I can tell, none of the panelists here speak. I have pointed out the 1 sentence in which her name appears and have asked for translation so that we can evaluate this source, but so far there has only been deafening silence. Agricola44 (talk) 15:21, 10 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]
  • Reply to Agricola44: I think there might be something problematic here. I think, contrary to what is being claimed, she has produced a lot of important work that has been well cited. I also am not sure that we can assume that Maryańska was using the kind of gamesmanship when submitting papers to journals that is being suggested (and is unfortunately so common nowadays). I think it likely that Palaeontologia Polonica, Acta Geologica Polonica and Acta Pal. Pol. were the obvious places to submit her articles! These were the first tier journals for her to be publishing in. Whilst WoS does now include Acta Pal. Pol. and Acta Geologica Polonica ( but not Palaeont. Polonica), I think it started doing so after some her most well cited work work was published. WoS coverage of these is limited. (I think it only starts its coverage in 1997/2004). One of Maryańska more highly cited papers according to GS (74 citations including ones in such journals as Science and Nature) Gradzinski, R., Z. Kielan-Jaworowska, and T. Maryanska. "Upper Cretaceous Djadokhta, Barun Goyot and Nemegt formations of Mongolia, including remarks on previous subdivisions." Acta Geologica Polonica 27.3 (1977): 281-318 - is, for example, not in WoS. As for "other notable experts" that have noted her contributions I think we might note that other leading paleontologist eg JJ Seposki (who is mentioned above as a leading paleontologist) cite Maryanska in their work. Eg: RE Chapman, PM Galton, JJ Sepkoski Jr, WP Wall - "A morphometric study of the cranium of the pachycephalosaurid dinosaur Stegoceras." Journal of Paleontology (1981): 608-618. cite Maryanska, T. and H. Osmlska. 1974. Pachycephalosauria, a new suborder of ornithischian dinosaurs. Palaeont. Polonica 30:45-102. This also is not in WoS. I would view these as a sensible considerations on which base a judgment of academic notability but I guess these might be called "other mitigating circumstances" by others. (Msrasnw (talk) 11:01, 11 March 2013 (UTC))[reply]
PS: With regards to Nature - a quick search indicates Maryańska has been cited 14 times in Nature: Nature 378, 764-765; Nature 475, 465-470; Nature 378, 774-776; Nature 399, 350-354; Nature 279, 633-635; Nature 447, 844-847; Nature 283, 380-381; Nature 289, 97-98; Nature 465, 466-468; Nature 435, 84-87; Nature 405, 941-944; Nature 419, 291-293, Nature 416, 314-317; Nature 393, 782-783. I think most of these have not been noted in WoS.
PPS With regards to the journal Science her work has been cited 6 times: Science 4 November 1994: 779-782 - Science 4 November 1994: 782-784. - Science 27 March 1992: 1690-1693 - Science 1 September 2006: 1238. - Science 29 January 2010: 571-574. - Science 27 March 1992: 1693-1695. And I think most of these have not been noted in WoS. (Msrasnw (talk) 13:54, 11 March 2013 (UTC))[reply]
  • Reply. I agree that matters of evaluation are dicey for scientists behind the Iron Curtain. I do not claim to know the situation in individual countries, for example to what degree there were state-enforced prohibitions on interacting/publishing with the outside world. I do know that there's no precedent for grading citations, as you imply above. It is still the case that a citation from Nature or Science is no better than one from a different journal and a citation from JJ Seposki is no better than one from someone else. Again, though we're collectively having some trouble in determining her exact citation record, it appears that it is not obviously and conspicuously above average, and, moreover, there aren't any other secondary sources that materially describe her work as being significant or notable. The bottom line here is that there are already enough "keep" !votes to ensure this article will stay, even if it is by no-consensus, so I will respectfully stick with agreeing to disagree on this case. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 16:38, 11 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]
But it is you I want to convince!!!! :) (Msrasnw (talk) 16:42, 11 March 2013 (UTC))[reply]
I appreciate that:) Kmicic is probably right that most of us are not paleontologists...I'm definitely not...though I don't know whether s/he is either. This renders me unable to judge "subtle shades of gray", as I might be able to do in physics or mathematics BLPs, so it's 0 or 1 in this case. What I see very plainly is that it is easy to find obviously notable paleontologists on WP (I immediately found the examples of Seposki and Shubin, despite having never heard of these individuals) and their publication records are very typical of notable scientists in other fields and dramatically better than Maryanska's. Shubin and Sepkoski are/were rank-and-file academics, so I think it's questionable to what degree anti-paleo citation bias exists. Citation bias certainly is relevant in most of the humanities, but the sciences are a different matter, which is why I originally advised caution in "grading on the curve" for this case. Again, appreciate your input, but I'm sticking with my original position. Thanks! Agricola44 (talk) 17:37, 11 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]
    • I'm curious why you didn't use dictionary or Google Translator. Obie autorki [Halszka Osmólska and Teresa Maryańska] wkrótce znalazły się w gronie wiodących w skali światowej specjalistów od tej grupy zwierząt. Both authors [Osmólska and Maryańska] soon after became a leading experts in the World scale in this group of animals [dinosaurs]. Sorry for my bad English. "Big papers" are often published in "small journals", especially if you know the situation in Poland before 1989. I think Zofia Kielan-Jaworska knew better who is expert than anonymous Wikipedians based on h-index. Kmicic (talk) 17:05, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've had spotty luck with translation tools and, since you quite obviously speak the language, it's clear that you can provide correct translation and context. What I was hoping for was some material description of why Maryanska's work is notable, what her important discoveries/analyses were, etc., but this appears to be more of a simple and brief collegial acknowledgement (again, this is common in academic culture). My guess is that all the evidence that is out there is now on the table, so it'll remain for the closing admin to render a verdict. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 19:07, 10 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]
  • keep - key scientist in the study of asian dinosaurs. biographical information unrelated to someone's study is a bonus but not key ingredient to the article. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:53, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete per Agricola. There is a question of whether we consider paleontology to be a low-citation field, and a question of which metrics we use. Due to the trouble with WoS outlined (particularly regarding the journals it indexes), I took a look at Google Scholar, where the subject has an h-index of 15 or so. When compared against Polish paleontologist Zofia Kielan-Jaworowska, who has a Gscholar h-index of 31 or so, this is quite low - bear in mind that citations are roughly quadratic in the h-index. Similarly, there is the question of her positions obtained - she is listed as "Docent," which, I understand it, in Poland is a title used to signify an appointment at a rank below that of Professor, not dissimilar to the German system. Thus, the subject would appear to fail the "more notable than the average professor" test. RayTalk 16:26, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • FWIW. For whatever coverage biases WoS exhibits in this case, it concurs with GS in showing that Zofia Kielan-Jaworowska has an enormously higher citation record than Maryanska, reporting >500 citations vs. Maryanska's total of 72. This tends to add additional credence to the proposition that it is Maryanska's lack of notability rather than some ethnic/national/paleo bias that explains the situation. Agricola44 (talk) 17:50, 11 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep Comment. (ec with previous comment) I think the concept of "pseudo-biography" is one we should dump. WP:PSEUDO is part of an essay, in fact, not a consensus position. If a scientist is significant enough that people might want to know who they are and what they did, as this one certainly appears to be, then it's worth having an encyclopedia article to tell us who they are and what they did. I don't think it matters at all if there aren't enough RSs to enable us to fill in biographical details that are, anyway, secondary to the person's scientific contribution. --Stfg (talk) 16:35, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I invoked WP:PSEUDO because it came closest to expressing my thoughts on the subject. However, there are consensus policies among the reasons for deletion that may apply here: reason 7 (WP:V) because the sources provide very little information on the subject; and reason 9 (WP:BLP) because the subject is arguably notable for only one event. My thinking is, the weaker the arguments for notability, the more important these considerations become. I think this scientist should be covered in Wikipedia, just not in a separate article. RockMagnetist (talk) 17:13, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am in agreement with you on "pseudo-biographies". As I wrote recently on WP:BLPN (concerning a different case), "I, for one, strongly disagree with its position and pejorative language on biographies of people known more for what they have done than for the details of their personal life: I believe our coverage of academic researchers in general would be gutted if we took this seriously (because they are primarily and rightly known for their academic accomplishments, not for their birthdays and dating history). It is a bad essay to follow because it guides us in the direction of superficiality." —David Eppstein (talk) 04:11, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - actually there may be a relevant notability guideline: WP:BIO1E (People notable for one event), if the "event" is the collection of Polish-Mongolian expeditions and the results that came out of them (I admit, many people might consider that a stretch). Does a separate article on Maryańska give undue weight to her role in these expeditions? RockMagnetist (talk) 17:48, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this may warrant a closer look. Zofia Kielan-Jaworowska evidently led these expeditions and it may be that there were lots of "staffers" that participated, who by themselves were not notable, but whose names nevertheless appeared on publications. The lack of WP:RS means that it may not be trivial to check. Agricola44 (talk) 17:53, 11 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]
  • Assessment. That is a fairly extensive reprint of a chapter of one of Colbert's books giving a detailed history of the Gobi research. It discusses history/work of many notable paleos/geologists/explorers in some level of detail: Roy Andrews, Raphael Pumpelly, Vladimir Obruchev, Walter Granger, Henry Osborn, Ivan Yefremov, and of course Zofia Kielan-Jaworowska, e.g. "Polish involvement in Mongolia began in 1955 when Zofia...". There are no substantive details or mention of Maryanska or her specific work or findings. Her name only appears in this article as one entry in a long list of Polish paleos that were members of various expeditions – seemingly a textbook case of WP:TRIVIALMENTION. Maryanska may have been what we would refer to today as a staffer who participated in these expeditions, but did not play the role of a "principal investigator". Agricola44 (talk) 21:03, 11 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep: I'm astonished that the subject has even come up. Abyssal (talk) 19:09, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep How can one event possibly apply to a series of discoveries and publications? If she had discovered one fossil once and published one paper on it, that might be an argument, but it seems altogether inapplicable here. As for her actual role in the work, we can only go by the publications, and assume the authorship is meaningful. In a joint project, the descriptions of the new species are not usually assigned to technicians. It has, btw, been established in other AfDs that anyone describing multiple species is notable--it may even have been so said for someone formally describing a single species, though I would regard that as stretching it. DGG ( talk ) 00:30, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think it might be useful to note that Peter Dodson (1998 p. 9) claims that in 1974 Maryanska together with Osmolska were the first "women to describe new kinds of dinosaurs". (Dodson, Peter (1998) The Horned Dinosaurs: A Natural History, Princeton Univerity Press) (Msrasnw (talk) 04:02, 12 March 2013 (UTC))[reply]
  • "As for her actual role in the work, we can only go by the publications, and assume the authorship is meaningful" – I've been arguing this over at the current Proctor AfD, but it's not holding water there. :( Agricola44 (talk) 01:08, 12 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]
  • If my interpretation of an "event" seems strained, it is because the wording of the policy is slanted towards people in the news. I think the policy needs to be adapted to academics, and this is my first attempt to do so. The central statement on her achievement is "A member of the 1964, 1965, 1970, and 1971 Polish–Mongolian expeditions to the Gobi Desert, she has described many finds from these rocks, often with Halszka Osmólska." But no one has found any details of how she contributed to those expeditions, and the only sources for her contributions to studying the dinosaurs are the primary sources with her name on them. WP:BIO1E concludes with the statement: "Editors are advised to be cognizant of issues of weight and to avoid the creation of unnecessary pseudo-biographies, especially of living people." RockMagnetist (talk) 01:49, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think after the recent improvements, her notability (and the sourcing for it) is much more clear. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:11, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional notability: Feduccia a noted paleornithologist argues that Maryanska and her colleagues (Osmólska and Wolsan) "noted for their careful work", produced in 2002 the "most impressive analysis of the oviraptorosaurs". Their analysis "unequivocally places the Oviraptorosauria with the Avialae, in a sister-group relationship with Confuciusornis, Archaeopteryx, The ..... which are successively more distant outgroups to the Oviraptorosauria. By their scheme, birds evolved from more primitive theropods, and oviraptorosaurs are birds that became flightless and, like the ratites, re-evolved some primitive features." (REF:Feduccia, Alan (2012) Riddle of the Feathered Dragons: Hidden Birds of China, Yale University Press) I think this shows that Maryanska has thus been recognised by a noted figure as having made a substantial and notable contribution to a much debated area in paleornithology. (Msrasnw (talk) 10:32, 12 March 2013 (UTC))[reply]
  • O.k., that tips the balance for me. I'll withdraw my nomination. Nice work, Msrasnw! I think it would be good to add the rest of that quote to the article. I'd do it myself, but The ... looked like a typo and I can't access that passage in the book. RockMagnetist (talk) 15:37, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Academics, many times even highly-influential English ones, are often very rarely written about. The fact that as someone cited above "Anthony J. Martin's (2006) Introduction to the Study of Dinosaurs Wiley-Blackwell - describes H Osmólska and T Maryańska as still being considered to be "Poland's leading experts on dinosaurs" (page 78)" is certainly more than enough. Sad that we have to have a debate about it. II | (t - c) 11:58, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a definite keep considering the fact that articles like this still exists even after multiple AfD attempts, where the subject has no real notability. I know, this is not a valid argument, but can't resist pointing out the kind of imbalance in Wikipedia. Salih (talk) 17:21, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think that the work done by people here has provided sufficient evidence that she is notable. RockMagnetist raises important points about notability of academics. It would not be too difficult to go through the faculty lists of most departments of research universities around the world and note their important contributions. After all, academics are not hired at research universities and promoted without making notable contributions in their fields as determined by a consensus of their peers. Should we then simple include all academics who are at research universities around the world? I do not think there is easy to answer for many if not most academics.--I am One of Many (talk) 21:36, 12 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. Jenks24 (talk) 11:47, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MFC 1

edit
MFC 1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable event. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTSEVENT. Luchuslu (talk) 04:05, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Luchuslu (talk) 04:10, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Luchuslu (talk) 04:12, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:27, 7 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. Jenks24 (talk) 11:46, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Joel Asarch

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

Subject was a New York Supreme Court Justice, which would seem to confer notability; but Google Web and Google News searches for ("joel asarch") yield little beyond his obituary. I found a few blog posts opposing his election to the state Supreme Court, but no evidence that the media had picked up on any kind of controversy. Neither the principal obituary that I found nor his capsule biography at Touro Law School suggests that he did anything controversial or noteworthy. Appears to fail WP:GNG, unless his state Supreme Court position confers it automatically. Ammodramus (talk) 04:05, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:23, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:23, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:23, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:23, 7 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. Jenks24 (talk) 11:45, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MFC 2

edit
MFC 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable event. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTSEVENT. Luchuslu (talk) 03:59, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Luchuslu (talk) 04:10, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Luchuslu (talk) 04:12, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:22, 7 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. Jenks24 (talk) 11:44, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

漂流瓶- A Memoir in Chinese

edit
AfDs for this article:
漂流瓶- A Memoir in Chinese (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems to be somewhat self promoting Uberaccount (talk) 03:39, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: After first declining a speedy deletion request on the article, I looked into the details, and ended up basically removing everything. The majority of the article, and all of the sources (except for the book itself) were actually about Bend, Not Break, which is this author's second book. I can't even find any libraries carrying the book (searching in WorldCat), nor does anything relevant seem to come up in English when I search either for the Chinese characters or the transliteration WorldCat offers. As such, the book does not seem to be notable per WP:GNG. If there's even a single independent source information about the book should be included on Ping Fu, the author's page. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:59, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete - I've never seen any true evidence this book even exists (and isn't a hoax of some kind, perpetrated by Fu's detractors). Certainly no evidence of notability whatsoever. Its constant recreation by SPAs only further strengthens this case. Lukeno94 (talk) 08:07, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:21, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:21, 7 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. Keeper | 76 16:20, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anand Rishiji Maharaj

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

The article does not cite any reliable source to establish the notability of the person. It should thus be deleted. Rahul Jain (talk) 18:12, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Please do not use deletion process for clean up/sources. Just tag them as such. The Government of India thought the person notable enough and issued a postage stamp in his honour so he is worthy of a page on wikipedia.. Nominator, Wikipedia is a Collaborative project, what you have done to find sources for this page? Further Wikipedia is a work-in-progress: we don't need every article that is imperfect to be deleted. Shyamsunder (talk) 19:18, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a reliable source for the postage stamp claim? IRWolfie- (talk) 23:33, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 28 February 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) 02:44, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The issuing of a stamp in someone's honor is a distinction unusual enough that it seems to create a presumption of notability. I linked to the photo of the stamp because an earlier comment had asked whether we had verifiable evidence of its existence.
I've dealt with the copyvio situation by reverting to an older version of the article; this is the course recommended by WP:DCV, which calls for deletion only if no such non-infringing older version exists. Ammodramus (talk) 13:46, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • We don't seem to have a source saying that the Indian government decided to honour him by printing the stamp. People are inferring it from a primary source. I am also not aware of how much of an honour it is for one to have a stamp in India, nor do I have any measure for knowing if it confers notability. The two sources shown [72] [73] look to be of poor quality for describing the individual, IRWolfie- (talk) 17:22, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The lengthy process involved in determining who is going to be honoured with a postage stamp, or set of stamps, of their country is indeed evidence of their notanility, particularly in India where there are candidates galore, but most of them are sidelined because of the rigorous selection standards applied. As for Google results, looking under "Jainism Anand Rishiji Maharaj" produces ample and better results than just entering his name. The article certainly needs to be expanded with additional independent sources, as the man was and is notable. Have a look at this list of some of the most prominent Jains he has joined, who adorn Indian postage stamps. There are not that many.--Zananiri (talk) 17:42, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (already !voted): The sources linked to by performing the revised Google Search really aren't reliable, nor does appearing on a postage stamp - even if this is rare - confer notability. Right now, there really aren't reliable, third-party sources that show how this man meets, for example, WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO, to name some of the simpler policies. dci | TALK 23:34, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
* Comment: I agree that a picture alone is never a reliable source, but if one looks at how only prominent figures in their respective fields (in philatelic jargon that means notable) are selected for commemorative issues rather than definitive ones ( I am assuming everyone here knows the different criteria involved in issuing the two types of stamps by all democratic postal authorities) the man's notability shoud not be in doubt. The selection process in India is described under 'Philately' here:http://www.indiapost.gov.in/Philately.aspx I should add that all the other prominent Jains (in my previous link) who had Indian commemorative stamps issued to honour them also have WP articles, sometimes with variations in their names. Surely, not just pure coincidence. As I mentioned before, the selection process for commemorative stamps is pretty rigorous and most candidates tend to fall by the wayside.--Zananiri (talk) 14:16, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]


There is inherent systematic bias on wikipedia and that is what being confirmed in this discussion on the deletion .
I don't really think so; there is no bias whatsoever against this topic due to the subject's origins or those of its major contributors. The same thing would be happening were this a similar American Catholic figure with a void of reliable sources. dci | TALK 01:31, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional datum. It appears that India issued 54 postage stamps in 2002: the WINS number consists of a two-letter country code, followed by a three-digit serial number, followed by a period and then two digits for the year. The ARM stamp has WINS number IN023.02, for instance. I changed the serial number in the URL at the Universal Postal Union website and found numbers running up to IN054.02, but nothing higher. Of the stamps I randomly looked at, roughly half were not for particular individuals (lots of buildings, for instance). This suggests that getting on an Indian stamp is a fairly rare distinction: it's not one of those countries that issue hundreds of stamps yearly in order to maximize revenue from philatelists. Ammodramus (talk) 13:44, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
54 post stamps in a single year sounds like a lot. Are all of those buildings you mentioned notable? We still don't have any sources, IRWolfie- (talk) 14:42, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
According to List of people on stamps of the United States, the US issued 37 stamps featuring specific individuals in 2002. All of the subjects have WP articles, so all of them are presumably notable.
Point 13 of the India Post's rules re. commemorative stamps states "The personalities on whom commemorative postage stamp may be issued should be of national or international importance". Could we compare this situation to the listing of a property in the US's National Register of Historic Places? Many NRHP sites have received little or no media attention, but the NRHP listing alone is considered sufficient to establish notability. Ammodramus (talk) 16:38, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I do happen to be familiar with the selection process in different countries. Ammodramus makes some valid points. The population of India is over three times that of the US, so if the US issued 37 stamps, India with 54 is no exaggeration. More people in India use more postage stamps. Essentially, we are discussing here commemorative stamps for notable people. As I observed earlier, there are Wiki articles on the other Jain personalities depicted on Indian stamps. They were chosen because of their notability and no other reason. The extract from the mission statement quoted by Ammodramus should suffice to convince the sceptics and those not au fait with how democratic countries, not in the business of producing stamps as an industry, choose the personalities to adorn their stamps. We are not talking about buildings here but people, not about definitive stamps but commemorative stamps. In fact, governments and postal authorities choose these personalities along the lines Wiki demands regarding notabiliy. Such stamps draw the attention of the nation and the world to their notability.--Zananiri (talk) 17:50, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Zananiri, are you at all acquainted with the Indian media? I've tried searching the websites of The Hindu and The Times of India to see if I could find articles connected with the release of the stamp. I've had no luck, but I may not be using the right search terms—I believe there are a variety of ways of transliterating various Indian languages into English, and an alternative transliteration might produce results. It's also possible that there are other newspapers and magazines, either in English or in other languages, that would yield the sort of article we want. I suspect that much of the support for deletion comes from the fact that we've only got Jain sources for ARM's biography. Ammodramus (talk) 18:20, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you are looking for the news item you should search newspapers of Maharashtra state and specially Marathi language newspapers. The release of stamp would have been covered by the newspapers of state Maharashtra where the person lived.Shyamsunder (talk) 19:59, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem here is not whether or not the person met criteria to be on an Indian government stamp. Although it may sound a bit insulting to the article's subject - and there is no intent to degrade him - the problem is that there isn't significant coverage in reliable sources establishing his notability. dci | TALK 20:42, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, that's not the problem, because nobody in this discussion has actually looked in the right places for such coverage, for which it would be an extraordinary claim that they don't exist for one of the couple of dozen people selected to be pictured on a stamp in 2002 out of the billion or so Indians. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:37, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
DCI, how do you know that sources don't exist in Marathi? Have you left a message on the Embassy page of Marathi wikipedia asking for Marathi sources? In ictu oculi (talk) 04:24, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
* Comment - This is the official Ahmednagar District website (not something put out by the Jain community) about Anand Rishiji Maharaj and the memorial erected in his memory (Anand Dham):http://ahmednagar.gov.in/html_docs/AhmednagarCity.htm It seems many other sites may have copied the text about him from here rather than vice versa. Practically all tourist sites for this area list the memorial as a significant attraction for tourists (third on many lists) in the district. How many notable people with Wiki articles about them are honoured officially in this manner, one wonders, or to put it the other way round: how many people who pass the Wiki notability test for articles are honoured like this, not to mention the postage stamp! --Zananiri (talk) 23:16, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Upgrade to Strong Keep as expected after seeing Marathi sources. For two Jain religious organisations to be sponsoring festivals for the 100th birthday of someone isn't in itself unusual, but it does confirm his significance in the Jain community, and is reliably reported in mainstream Marathi newsprint. Still think this was a bit of a misuse of AfD. If Eddie Eagan came up for AfD on Marathi wikipedia, and no one on Marathi wikipedia could speak English would they still recognise that being on a US Postal Service stamp means notability? The original nominator could easily have gone direct to WP Jainism or Marathi wp's English Embassy page rather than AfD. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:21, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Information from Marathi Language Sources

1)News article in Marathi language "दौंड येथे धर्मप्रभावना शताब्दी रथ यात्रेचे मोठय़ा उत्साहात स्वागत करण्यात आले. ऑल इंडिया श्‍वेतांबर स्थानकवासी जैन कॉन्फरन्स यांच्या वतीने आचार्य आनंद ऋषीजी यांचा दीक्षा जयंती शताब्दी महोत्सव व युवाचार्य मिश्रीमलजी महाराज यांच्या जन्मशताब्दी निमित्ताने या धर्मप्रभावना यात्रेचे आयोजन करण्यात आलेले आहे."[2] Rough Translation (Pl. forgive for any translation and language mistakes) :"All India Shwetambara Sthanakwasi Jain conference has organised a religious congregation at Daund to celebrate (diksha) birth centenary of Anand Rishiji Maharaj. (This news item is apeared in Daily Lokamat News paper ,This one is one of highest selling news paper in Maharashtra)

2)नगर - गरीब व सर्वसामान्यांचे आरोग्य मंदिर म्हणून ओळखल्या जाणाऱ्या येथील आनंदऋषीजी रुग्णालयाच्या सेवाकार्याने प्रभावित झालेल्या चाळीसगाव येथील शांतिलाल धोका यांनी आपली स्वकष्टार्जित तब्बल 40 लाखांची संपत्ती रुग्णालयाला आज अर्पण केली![3]Rough Translation (Pl. forgive for any translation and language mistakes) :"A doner from Chalisgoan namely "Shantilal Dhoka" has donated self earned property worth Rs.40lacks (rouhly 73882 USD) to "Anand Rishiji Hospital"(This news item is apeared in Daily Sakal News paper ,This one is one of credible news paper source in Maharashtra)


3)नाशिक येथील राष्ट्रसंत आचार्य आनंदऋषीजी महाराज या शाळेत शिकणाऱ्या देवेन भटू वाघ हा इयत्ता पहिलीत शिकणारा विद्यार्थी आंतरराष्ट्रीय मॅथेमॅटीक्स ऑलिम्पियाडमध्ये ९७.५० टक्के मार्क्स मिळवून पहिला आला आहे.[4] (Pl. forgive for any translation and language mistakes) :" Mastar Deven Bhatu Wagh , a first standard student studying in Nashik's RashtraSant(NationalSaint) Acharya Anandrishiji Maharaj School ; came first among all Indian students scoring 97.5% in International Mathematics Olympiad."(This is a news paper report from Times of Inadia group Marathi language news paper Maharasthra Times which is one of top twos is encyclopedic credibility ranking)

4)"स्वानंद महिला संस्था आणि भारतीय जैन संघटना महिला विभाग यांनी संत तुकारामनगर येथील आचार्य अत्रे रंगमंदिरात नववे स्त्री साहित्य-कला संमेलन आयोजित केले होते. ......भक्ती सवाने यांना आचार्य आनंदऋषीजी साहित्यरत्न पुरस्कार देण्यात आला."[5]

(Pl. forgive for any translation and language mistakes):"One Ms.Bhakti Savane has been felicitated with 'Aacharya Anandrishiji Sahityratn(a literary) award' at nineth Women's literature and art conclave held by Swanand Mahila Sanstha and Bharatiya Jain Sanghatana women's division.

5)Found an article about Anand Rishiji Maharaj in "Vyakti Sandarbh Kosh" (an encyclopedia of personalities language marathi) on Marathi Srushti.com .[6] (I have seen "Vyakti Sandarbh Kosh" editors in person at one of state level encyclopedist conference held by aikya bharati so feel to be a credible source.)

Can not translate immidiately since it is a copyrighted source but can be used for refrences.

6) Resources available on Google books Book name View snippet Spiritual masters of India (20th century) By G. R. Sholapurkar - 1994 -language english - Page 128 : "Acharya Anand Rishi Ji Maharaj has been the chief inspiration in founding many institutions. Some of these are mentioned below: (i) In memory of his Guru, Acharva Ratna Rishi Ji Maharaj, the RATNA JAIN PUSIAKALAYA PATHARDIH was ..."

7) Another resource observed on Google books No preview but "name of Anand Rishiji Maharaj is mentioned on the cover page of the book named "Jain Acharyas"; Editor:Books Llc;Publisher :General Books, 2010 ;ISBN 1155785428, 9781155785424 Length:94 pages [7]

8)"He became the second acharya of Vardhman Sthanakvasi Jain Shravak Sangh, a Jain religious body,[5] from 1964 to 1992 "

I suppose this is more than enough for encyclopedic notability.And lately added references in the article seem to be vaild enough.

9)::>>there were more sources that gave actual biographical details

Article is incomplete that does not mean not natable . Complteting the article is for concerned wikipedians
Thanks for raising the querry on mr-wiki embassy . and best wishes.

Mahitgar (talk) 07:23, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/9907853/Schoolgirl-12-has-higher-IQ-than-Einstein.html
  2. ^ धर्मप्रभावना यात्रेचे दौंडला स्वागत-(05-03-2013 : 01:25:52) Daily Lokmat seen online on 15/3/2013 12.50IST
  3. ^ "आनंदऋषीजी'साठी 40 लाखांची संपत्ती अर्पण Sunday, September 26, 2010 AT 12:00 AM (IST) seen online on 15/3/2013 12.50IST
  4. ^ देवेन वाघ ठरला 'नॅशनल चॅम्पियन'-म. टा. वृत्तसेवा । धुळे seen online on 15/3/2013 12.50IST
  5. ^ http://maharashtratimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/7408532.cms
  6. ^ [1]
  7. ^ Google books website as ssen on 15th /3/2013 17.15 IST
  • Weak keep. After a fairly exhaustive Google search I failed to find any sources in English, but the postage stamp plus Mahitgar's Marathi source no. 1 have just about persuaded me that this should be kept. I would be happier if there were more sources that gave actual biographical details, however. Bear in mind that I can't read Marathi at all, so I have no way of judging Mahitgar's sources 3 or 4 - my weak keep may turn into a normal keep depending on what the translations are. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 08:24, 15 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. Jenks24 (talk) 11:44, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Visual Novel Database

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

Non-notable website. Fulfills speedy deletion criteria A7. No indication of importance (individuals, animals, organizations, web content, events). Was previously speedied by Eeekster, but DGG removed it. I left a message on DGG's talk page and proposed deletion but apparently that's not allowed because "Deletion of the article has already been contested by the declining of the speedy deletion". DGG has failed to adequately explain why it shouldn't be deleted. --Atlantima (talk) 01:18, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Atlantima (talk) 01:45, 7 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) Atlantima (talk) 01:45, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per CSD A7: "An article about... web content... that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant". In my opinion, DGG erred in declining the CSD. I am unable to find any reliable sources with which to establish notability per WP:WEBCRIT. - MrX 01:54, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I declined the speedy because I thought a db of such proportions was a reasonable indication of importance. It was then placed on Prod, and I was quite aware of it but did not remove it, for I was unable to find acceptable sources. I declined to remove the prod, someone else removed it, thinking the speedy being declined prevented the subsequent prod, which is not the case. I don't think the nom meant to suggest it was myself, for the sequence is clear enough in the article history. The point of speedy a7 is to remove articles which are so obviously unimportant that it is absurd to even look for sources. I've deleted thousands of such articles. I've also removed speedy tags for things that might be s/n if they can be sourced; some are, some aren't but if I want the community to have a chance at it, I remove the speedy tag. DGG ( talk ) 02:11, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Thanks for the clarification. - MrX 02:42, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete DGG was right to decline the speedy; VNDB seems to be the dominant English language database for this type of game. Wikipedia has a template for VNDB, see Template:Vndb, so someone considers it a useful source. I found many mentions of VNDB in potentially reliable sources, e.g., [75], but always as references for the novels being discussed, never as the main subject of a news article itself. No in-depth reliable sources suggest that this topic fails general notability guidelines. The article should be deleted, but with no prejudice to re-creation when secondary sources become available. --Mark viking (talk) 05:02, 7 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. Jenks24 (talk) 11:43, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jupiter 7

edit
Jupiter 7 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This subject appers to fail WP:BASIC and WP:BAND. Several searches for "Larry Ewings", "Jupiter 7" and other criteria have not provided reliable sources. Northamerica1000(talk) 01:16, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:17, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:17, 7 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. Jenks24 (talk) 11:42, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rather Ripped Album Sampler

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

not Wikipedia-notable nor worthy of its own article Lachlan Foley (talk) 02:32, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 28 February 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) 01:00, 7 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 nomination withdrawn. Jenks24 (talk) 11:42, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Estulin

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

Completely unable to find WP:RS refs for this person via Google or Google News (though there are some spanish-language sources, I do not know how to read spanish), though plenty of youtube videos, Alex Jones, Prison Planet, et al.

I would note that the sole RS-esque reference in the article itself was on the op-ed page of the Seattle Times, so non-RS as I understand it. [UseTheCommandLine ~/talk] #_ 03:45, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, the previous AfD relied on "number of google hits" as a metric of notoriety. WP:BIO states: "Avoid criteria based on search engine statistics (e.g., Google hits or Alexa ranking), or measuring the number of photos published online." though it may not have at the time of the previous AfD.

He does not appear to me to be an academic (which to me means that RS are required to establish notability, as that is one of the primary exceptions to the availability of secondary sources on a person)

-- [UseTheCommandLine ~/talk] #_ 03:53, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 28 February 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) 01:00, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep receives a biography here in one of the main Spanish newspapers. Another interview here in another Spanish newspaper where he's cited as having international fame due to a bestselling book. An article here in the same newspaper, covering his views. Covered here through a meeting with Fidel Castro. Cited here in the Guardian as "one of the more famous Bilderberg documentarians." Some coverage here seeming to establish him as a major conspiracy theorist. All in all, he seems to have attracted enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. Valenciano (talk) 06:44, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thanks. Very helpful. Rescinded by submitter. -- [UseTheCommandLine ~/talk] #_ 06:55, 7 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. Jenks24 (talk) 11:40, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Julian Simpole

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

This article does not meet WP:GNG as he has not been the subject of multiple third-party coverage in reliable sources. This article simply reads "X is a chess author," and the sources cited give more an air of blatant advertisement than anything else. The article does not even address why the subject may be notable. Should have been speedied. I nominate this article for deletion under those grounds listed and whatever other grounds may be raised during the discussion. Thank you for your consideration. OGBranniff (talk) 06:27, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 28 February 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) 00:59, 7 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 nomination statement is very persuasive and I accept the arguments made in it entirely - no rebuttal was forthcoming despite multiple relistings. Daniel (talk) 11:37, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Predators Watch

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

I am bringing this to AFD because although the article is slowly becoming a coatrack for people whom I suppose are victims of this, and I appreciate the effort to inform people about such things, ultimately Wikipedia is not the venue for that. I cannot find a single reliable source that could establish independent, third-party coverage of this website, or its operators. Many web scams (and for purposes of NPOV I'm not claiming this is one) are routinely covered in mainstream media. This one does not appear to have that distinction. As such, the only references I could find (and the only ones in the article at this point) are other non-reliable scam report websites, message boards and the like. There's even an anonymous Reddit posting. Therefore the subject fails both WP:GNG and WP:WEB. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 21:21, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
*keep* There are references in many publications to this and sister site which I have added. Does it help? Thank you, MarioNovi (talk) 23:04, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The material and references you added are about "Potential Prostitutes", not Predators Watch. This is the deletion discussion for the latter. If you feel you have enough material for an article about the former, and that they meet the notability guidelines for inclusion, you are welcome to create an article about them. I understand they might be related or operated by the same people, but that's irrelevant to this discussion. If you do create an article that meets our notability requirements, I'd have no problem turning this into a redirect. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 23:17, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Some of them are for both web sites if you check. Thank you, MarioNovi (talk) 02:48, 25 February 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) 10:41, 28 February 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) 00:30, 7 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. Some research could be done on the company to see if an article would be suitable - I could easily undelete/userfy the history of this article on request to add it. Keeper | 76 00:20, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seth Suleman Ismail Chhapra

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

Fails WP:GNG. GSearch results seem to return only mirrors, directories etc and even if the company he founded was/is notable, notability is not inherited. Sitush (talk) 20:01, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Unfortunately this man lived and died before computers were widely used so anything about him is probably going to be archived newspapers or books. However, searches at Google News and Books haven't found anything so it's possible they're not English or haven't been transferred to the Internet yet. I did find something that appears to be relevant here which mentions him and the company for an investment but it's vague aside from these details. I tried searching for only the company (United Timber Industries) but found nothing useful with Google Books but I did find this and this (apparently dead) which may suggest the company still exists. I'm open to other users trying to dig deeper but if no sources are found, there isn't much to support this article. SwisterTwister talk 20:43, 2 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) 00:27, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'm not seeing sourcing. Article started in 2007 seemed to be a cross between a memorial and a fluff piece. I suspect the company might meet notability guidelines and that would be a good place for a short biography of this otherwise seemingly non-notable founder to be integrated, eventually. Carrite (talk) 18:28, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but probably move to be a page on the company. I would not be willing to keep an article with no verification whatsoever, but there are sources on the firm, United Timber Industries. DGG ( talk ) 06:18, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Hardly anything has been added to the article since its creation. The company may indeed be doing well now but the Indiamart website cited by DGG suggests that his successors have built it up, as they themselves say: we have come a long way from our humble beginning as a small time timber dealing company in the 1950's. In other words, though he created the enterprise, he did not know which way it was heading. If the company is considered notable, someone could create an article on it and his name could be mentioned there. However, the second site cited by DGG regarding imports states explicitly: This member has NOT been TradeSafe Verified. Trust Certification provides transparency regarding the identity and legitimacy of your trading partners on Importers.com. Only companies whose business information has been verified by a third-party source are TradeSafe Verified. Something desirable regarding notability seems to be missing there, as NOT is being emphasised.--Zananiri (talk) 16:00, 14 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.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2013_March_7&oldid=1142631300"