Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 November 9

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log
< 8 November 10 November >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:31, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Schare

edit
Jeff Schare (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 is a police detective, who participated in solving an old murder case, for which he and his partner received the local Police Association's Detective of the Year Award. The references do give him and his colleague due credit for their achievement, but the focus is on the murder case, it is not on the two police detectives as such, although the article wants to leave that impression. The article was created as an auto-bio by the subject and has been maintained by him with some recent edit warring. It has previously been quasi-suggested on the article talk page that it should be merged into the TV series The First 48. I don't see how this should be done, and I don't see any other police officers getting separate mention. I have sought to ascertain if the murder case of Donald Martin merits an article, but I believe it would not meet WP:N/CA. In my point of view we here have a WP:BLP1E created as an WP:AB that fails WP:GNG. Sam Sailor Sing 23:52, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Sing 23:53, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment When you go searching for sources be aware, that a certain Jeffrey Schare from Westport, CT, is not identical with article subject. -- Sam Sailor Sing 23:59, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:45, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:45, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Sam nails this. Two kinds of pork (talk) 03:17, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete per WP:GNG. This is not a BLP1E because BLP1E requires a "low profile individual". BLP1E is designed to protect an individual's privacy. That is not the case here, Schare was featured on the A&E show by his own volition, he clearly gave permission for national TV exposure and gave up his own privacy. So that leaves GNG. The A&E show is a very strong source, national television in depth about the topic. However it seems to end there, the John Boertlein articles are about a case Schare worked on .. weaker sources. The Hamilton County award is impressive but not enough to meet WP:ANYBIO #1 - if it was a state or national award I'd be more willing to see it as significant, but county level is local and we generally give less weight to local sources. Unless there are other source besides A&E and Boertlein, hard to see how it would pass GNG. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:32, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete luca_brasi1 (talk) 13:42, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:35, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Synead

edit
Synead (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 Prof. Squirrel (talk) 07:29, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 07:36, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 07:36, 30 October 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, BusterD (talk) 23:04, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'm not fluent with Portuguese so I can't help you there but there are common signs that this band is not notable anyway. The first is that they only released one album and it seems they may have never even formally released it. The second is that it very much looks like they were/are an indie band. Even their MySpace space says "on hiatus" so they're probably not even that active. As a precaution, I performed several searches including Google News but found nothing. I went ahead and also searched some of their tourmates and found an event listing for (hed)P.E along with some YouTube videos and other non-reliable stuff. This band is as notable as a group of high school teenagers playing in their garage. Nothing to add or improve its current state. SwisterTwister talk 03:28, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There doesn't seem to be an article about the band in the Portuguese Wikipedia. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:51, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:MUSIC. I'm only able to find a few blogs and sites containing user-submitted content that mention this act. — MusikAnimal talk 21:13, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Glossary of association football terms#J. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:30, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jew goal

edit
Jew goal (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)

Delete per WP:NEOLOGISM. Yoninah (talk) 20:57, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Yoninah (talk) 20:57, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Yoninah (talk) 20:57, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Yoninah (talk) 22:38, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've never heard of this, I thought it was just something offensive someone made up but I read the article and sources and now I know its offensive but none the less has gained a lot attention and meets the notability criteria.PeteBaltar (talk) 21:08, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pete, did you read the guideline? It says in part: 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. Yoninah (talk) 21:17, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Some of the sources do that. I could see going either way with this, honestly. There are a few sources listed already which discuss the term itself, its use inside soccer, and how racism and antisemitism are being tolerated by the association. I think this would be better served as a section in an article on racism in soccer, but racism in soccer is a mess. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:28, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:44, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 15:44, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Eliezer Palczynski

edit
Eliezer Palczynski (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)

Delete per WP:BIO. This article on a lesser-known rosh yeshiva has one citation, Yeshiva World News, regarding his death; the rest of the article is unsourced. A check of Google and Google Books turns up no other sources. Yoninah (talk) 20:01, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Withdrawn. Well, well. An intensive search for sources turned up reliable biographical information under 5 different spellings of his name (none of which, by the way, are the one in the page title). I hereby withdraw this nomination. Yoninah (talk) 23:01, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Yoninah (talk) 20:01, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:43, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:43, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument will be more persuasive if you give examples of such sources, since the article does not have them. Zerotalk 03:46, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The single source contains only a fraction of the article content, which is a big problem. In looking for sources, one must note multiple possible spellings: Palczynski, Palczynsky, Palachinski, Palachinsky, Pultchinsky, Pultchinski, Pulchinsky, Pulchinski, etc. This didn't help me much; as far as I can tell he is essentially unknown in English publications. Probably there is more in Hebrew, but the article in he.wikipedia has very few sources too. It notes a brief 1963 mention in Davar, but that is hardly enough. I'm generally in favor of articles on famous rabbis, but so far a case for notability and source availability has not been made. Zerotalk 03:46, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because:
  1. He was a very well known Talmudic scholar, as stated in Eliezer Palczynski#Legacy with many famous disciples e.g. Rabbis Mattisyahu Solomon; Moshe Shapiro, Nosson Tzvi Finkel and others prominent in their own right.
  2. As author of respected Talmudic scholarly works [2], [3], each entitled Shelom Yehuda (Hebrew: שלום יהודה) in memory of his father, he is thus regarded as WP:NOTABLE.
  3. Sure the article could use improvement, but to any WP:EXPERT in this field, it is an important encyclopedia entry. Therefore WP:DONOTDEMOLISH and WP:CHANCE should apply in this case.
  4. Here's are references to him that quote an episode in his life in Google books (note, where his name is spelled Palchinski) The Brisker Rav (in English), and as Palchinsky where gives the approbation to the cited book approbation to the cited book (also in English).
  5. Please note that this AfD hits upon a huge dilemma. Haredim and their leaders do not function like Western leaders. They despise the media and the academic world. They do not allow their children to study secular studies. They are vehemently opposed to the Internet and certainly to any form of mass publicity through it. See Of ostriches and cavemen; Can Israeli rabbis enforce their ban against the Internet? and Bezeq to launch ‘Kosher’ internet. The net result of all this is that one will often find very little information on the Web about some of the most notable and highly-regarded rabbis and Jewish sages. Thus one must often rely on the barest of crumbs that would minimally satisfy Wikipedia's standards and criteria for how to verify notability. Actually, Haredi rabbis would probably be very happy that no articles are written about them anywhere on the Internet and certainly not on Wikipedia. So these kinds of situations require great care and inspection so that one does miss the forest for the trees. IZAK (talk) 13:30, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All your points are good ones. I'll add that the need for good sources depends on a lot on the type of information. Uncontroversial biographical details are not so important, but stuff like claims of greatness really shouldn't be allowed unless sourced. Zerotalk 00:10, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Zero: I am not disputing you, and that is why I spent just a little time online and already found a few good leads that easily backed up the fact that he was a famous rosh yeshiva (yeshiva dean/head). No one ever thought that mere "claims" of greatness were at work here because he did leave behind enough specialized scholarly work, albeit in Talmud and in Hebrew (for some scholars sometimes it is in Yiddish and sometimes in other languages), that most secular English readers won't get. But this is obviously still not easy because there are plenty of famous people and scholars in every major field of study who are not well known to the public but who in their own fields wield great respect and if one digs deep enough there are enough references to them and their works that a determined search online will uncover, as I did. Thanks again for your thoughtful reply. IZAK (talk) 16:14, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:29, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dian Shi Mali

edit
Dian Shi Mali (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 bootleg; although fascinating, there is not enough sources (PUSH START TO RAZE) ViperSnake151  Talk  18:24, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

True but that was a bundled AFD where this was nominated with three other articles. Most of (if not all) of the debate centered around the fact that two or the other articles in the bundle were notable, so that close actually does not say much about this article.--70.49.81.26 (talk) 08:13, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:41, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:27, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Telman Aliyev

edit
Telman Aliyev (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)

Unref blp, written by single-purpose account, who is honest that he is an Azerbaijani computer scientist also. Nothing in article seems to clearly meet WP:PROF, and I couldn't establish it by Google, but it would be hard to establish an Azerbajani, so I may have missed something. I didn't want to use blpprod because I thought there might be something else out there to prove notability. Boleyn (talk) 17:59, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:40, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:40, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:26, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Lehmann

edit
AfDs for this article:
Daniel Lehmann (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)

Successfully deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Lehmann on June 14, 2009. User:Johnny Spasm recreated it as a redirect on July 9, 2009. Nothing has happened since June 2009 that would render the "delete" decision moot. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:32, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:32, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:33, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:33, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:22, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jeudy Valdez

edit
Jeudy Valdez (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 removed under the reasoning of "notable per WP:BASEBALL/N", but he doesn't fit that guideline at all. He fails all seven of those bullet points, and he lacks sufficient coverage per WP:GNG. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:12, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:13, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:13, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:13, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Non-notable minor league baseball player. Alex (talk) 05:44, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The dominican league is not top level.. In any event the guideline also states that "the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept" and that " it is best treated with common sense". These players still have to meet the GNG and this guy doesn't. Spanneraol (talk) 17:53, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

**I changed my vote to delete. Alex (talk) 14:19, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete. G12 — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:38, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Pierończyk

edit
Adam Pierończyk (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 text in this article is mainly a direct translation of this website, hence a copyright violation. Lymantria (talk) 17:09, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:36, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:36, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:20, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Hinton

edit
Robert Hinton (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)

Retired minor league ballplayer who never played a game in the majors; no exceptional third-party sources out there that would pass GNG. Wizardman 16:16, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:34, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:34, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:34, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy deleted. by User:SGGH as A7: Article about an eligible subject, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 17:37, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gangstar Los Angeles

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

Appears to be a non-notable mod for GTA IV, and also an unreleased one which I suspect would fail WP:CRYSTAL as well as the GNG for Pc Gaming. S.G.(GH) ping! 16:10, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete. A combination of patent nonsense (in French) and wholly inappropriate use of Wikipedia. Accenture can afford to pay for webhosting. Acroterion (talk) 16:02, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Accenture Collaboration

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

A combination of blatant advertising and misuse of the project "This wiki page is the collaboration between Accenture's staff and students from local university to provide consultation of to our client", with a large number of sections in what I believe to be French. Sven Manguard Wha? 15:57, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:18, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stephane Vlachos

edit
Stephane Vlachos (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)

Stephane Marc Vlachos was deleted earlier today, but I’m on the fence about whether to request speedy deletion for this, so I thought I'd discuss, in a sense, whether this qualifies for speedy. There are a fair number of reasonable references to him as inventor (or an inventor) of the electronic cigarette. This article leaves it at “one of the first, if not the very first, contributor to the invention.” However, the currently popular device, the one that reached the market, is based on an ultrasonic-based technology developed by Hon Lik, distinct from the heat-based method used by Vlachos. So Vlachos may have created an electronic cigarette, but not the type of electronic cigarette that has gone into production, and I don’t know if the article can rightfully say that he contributed to the one now being sold. In that case, he’s “notable” for having his name mentioned in articles presenting the history of the e-cigarette, but not for having had a role in creating the actual e-cigarette on the market today.

Further, I find no references to him in connection with cigarettes earlier than November 28, 2011 (though I don’t know where Google gets that date, since it’s not in the article)[4]. It’s almost as though there are now attempts to retrofit him artificially into the history of the present e-cigarette. That earliest article (the source, in French, for the information I presented above) mentions that Hon Lik filed for a patent from the World Intellectual Property Organization in 2005; it seems that an application from Vlachos was under consideration at the time the article was written.

Can significance be deemed to be implied by an article based on mentions of its subject's failure to achieve note? Should I have A7ed this? —Largo Plazo (talk) 14:51, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My humble analysis of the sources I found for this guy:
  1. http://www.mishpacha.com/Browse/Article/2315/Clearing-the-Smoke - Authored article by a seemingly reputable magazine (Mishpacha)
  2. http://www.prlog.org/12214272-who-really-invented-the-electronic-cigarette.html - Press release on a press release site. Anonymous author whose email ends in ecinventor.com and is from France (conflict of interest it seems, may even be Stephane himself!) ecinventor.com is a placeholder "this ___domain is registered" page with no further info.
  3. https://www.facebook.com/ElectronicCigare/posts/1420125941544011 - Facebook post by a page called "Electronic cigarette". Obviously this is not usable as a source but it does mention "If you are interested to hear more about this story or support this inventor, just drop an email to communication@ecmuseum.com". (The person at that email might have other sources if we ask them... assuming good faith here.)
  4. Going to ecmuseum.com redirects to http://ecmuseum.jimdo.com/, an apparently self published site that has the text of the press release from number 2 and a link to the press release.
  5. http://www.vapclub.fr/content/11-la-cigarette-electronique-c-est-quoi (mentioned by Largo above) - Lots of text, but if you scroll to the bottom you see that the source is French Wikipedia's article fr:Cigarette électronique. We shouldn't cite a source that cites Wikipedia. Furthermore, on FrWiki talk page for that article there's this:

Invention Vlachos ?

J'ai supprimé [5] l'assertion non sourcée d'une invention en 2001 par étudiant français Vlachos. Je ne trouve rien sur Internet, sinon des copies de Wikipédia. En plus la ligne «  Cette invention est en cours de reconnaissance par l'OMPI.  » est vraiment louche... J'imagine un canular. En tout cas, pas de source sérieuse, pas de wikipédia !

-- Irønie (d) 29 mai 2013 à 15:31 (CEST)

Translation by me with assistance from Google:

Vlachos invention?

I deleted [6] the unsourced assertion of invention in 2001 by French student Vlachos. I can not find anything on the Internet, besides copies of Wikipedia. In addition, the line "This invention is being recognized by WIPO." is really fishy ... I suspect a hoax. In any case, without a serious source, don't add it to Wikipedia!

- Irønie (d) May 29, 2013 at 15:31 (CEST)

TL;DR: I only found one reliable-looking source about this guy. -- Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 15:31, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:33, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:33, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:15, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just Dance Wii 2014

edit
Just Dance Wii 2014 (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)

Another fake game article. No cited sources. When searched on search engine, no results come up about it. Wiiboy829 (talk) 13:59, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is already an article on Just Dance 2014 which includes information on the Wii version Mcs2050wiki (talk) 15:55, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Just Dance 2014. Insufficient coverage in independent sources for its own article, though once the game is released that will probably change. Jinkinson talk to me 16:31, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - Page already exists as Just Dance 2014.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:31, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:31, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. LibStar (talk) 00:18, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Said Galore

edit
Adam Said Galore (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:BAND. the article is full of unreferenced statements. It has produced no charting singles or albums. LibStar (talk) 13:58, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:29, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:29, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:14, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

M.O

edit
M.O (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)

Having previously been moved from a preposterous title a month ago, a more thorough read of it does not show anything which indicates notability per WP:MUSICBIO. I tried to A7 it but Smartse contested it. Launchballer 13:31, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:29, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:29, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It was but Smartse declined it.--Launchballer 10:52, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
IMO A7 is for amateur bands i.e. those that are clearly not notable. The references e.g. this in The Guardian show that the band has at least had some coverage, which means it needed to come here to be discussed. That said, I couldn't find anything else more in depth and so I agree that WP:NMUSIC isn't met at the moment, so would suggest we delete. SmartSE (talk) 11:55, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 15:47, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Leonid Efros

edit
Leonid Efros (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)

claim to notability not in source given. and did he paint her, or was he present when she was painted, as the article says presently? does that make him notable? Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 12:21, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - the claim that he painted and drew members of the British royal family is verifiable and I fail to believe any old artist would be allowed at short notice into the royal residences. It's likely from the sources (and stated on his website) that his work is held by more than one important Russian art gallery, which would be a criteria for meeting WP:ARTIST. Because he is Russian and the main events took place pre-internet, other sources will be more difficult to locate (though likely to exist) so my view is we should give the benefit of the doubt and seek to improve the article. Sionk (talk) 13:26, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 14:42, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Unlike his collaborator Alexei Maximov, the subject has no article on the Russian Wikipedia, just a redlink from a surname index. I have't located more on him, but what is in the article and verified by references is maybe just enough. AllyD (talk) 14:44, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then the article needs to say exactly that, which it doesn't didn't before other editors came and cleaned it up.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 14:48, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, he didn't paint them, he made some drawings to be used later for his enamel pictures. It was fair enough to take it to AfD and, as a result, the issues have been clarified and improved. Sionk (talk) 17:11, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:27, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:27, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep According to his website,[7] his works are in the collections (WP:ARTIST #4):
  • Her Majesty the Queen of Great Britain Elizabeth II. Buckingham Palace. London,
  • Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother. Claren House. London,
  • Princess Anne. Buckingham Palace. London,
  • State Museum-Preserve "The Moscow Kremlin"
  • State Historical Museum. Moscow,
  • State Museum of Oriental Art. Moscow,
  • State Museum of Leo Tolstoy. Moscow,
  • Museum-panorama "Battle of Borodino". Moscow,
  • Zagorski Art and History Museum,
  • Museum "Peter and Paul Fortress." St. Petersburg,
  • In private collections in the UK, France, Germany, the U.S., Israel, Japan, and Australia.
The Russian Wikipedia deleted an article for this artist, but it was a Speedy based on a copyvio of the above podolsk-news.ru source.[8] Since we can verify at least some of these collections are true (Queen Mother, State Museum) it's reasonable to assume the others have some truth and it would be better to err on the side of Keep. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:42, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Given that it has been sufficiently improved to make him a participant and not some bystander, I withdraw the nom.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 12:08, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:38, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Christian de la Campa

edit
Christian de la Campa (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's lack of references is the first tip that this may not meet WP:BIO standards. I've searched Google and found a surplus of photographs of the subject, but nothing to support WP:GNG requirements. Unless someone is able to bring this up to speed, I would have to call for the article's deletion. And Adoil Descended (talk) 10:34, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 20:01, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 20:01, 30 October 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, And Adoil Descended (talk) 11:51, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:13, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Air France flight 6745

edit
Air France flight 6745 (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 hull loss of a cargo flight. Doesn't merit a standalone article. ...William 11:14, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions....William 11:18, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions....William 11:18, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions....William 11:18, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions....William 11:18, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:12, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Viktoria Manas

edit
Viktoria Manas (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)

Sufficient notability is asserted to pass CSD, but this is a non notable lady. Fiddle Faddle 09:50, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree, she is a famous plus-size model in Russia, even won a few awards. Of course most sites about her are in Russian and I don't think Wikipedia accepts non-English websites as credible references.Oct13 (talk) 10:50, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We accept Russian sources, as long as they pass our policy on reliable sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:30, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I did a search by her Russian name (Виктория Манас) and found some hits, but not for anything overwhelmingly major. She did win some beauty contests, but not any that seem to be very major. She placed second in another one, but I'm not really seeing that much coverage out there. She seems to be along the lines of one of the models that are relatively well known, yet never really gain much coverage in reliable sources. I have no problem with this getting userfied and if someone can show me that she's won notable pageants and received coverage in reliable sources such as newspapers, then I'm willing to change my argument. Most of what I saw were social media sites and blog entries. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:37, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"She seems to be along the lines of one of the models that are relatively well known, yet never really gain much coverage in reliable sources" Ah, I think you hit the nail on the head! Okay, so the article should be deleted. Or userfied, I guess. Oct13 (talk) 11:39, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Lactical 14:50, 9 November 2013 (GMT) Agreed. Deficient biography, should be deleted unless original creator can provide substantially better references.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:26, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:27, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:27, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:43, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NAZA TTDI Mosque

edit
NAZA TTDI Mosque (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)

Delete does not appear to be a notable building [[9]] Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:17, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 14:44, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 14:44, 31 October 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, Mr.Z-man 05:57, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wifione Message 07:56, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pioneer Valley Educational Press

edit
Pioneer Valley Educational Press (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 publisher, no substantial information, no sources, no improvements since creation in 2006. Rhododendrites (talk) 21:52, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 01:43, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 01:43, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - We can most definitely work on this article because the publisher's publications are well known and easily checked by a Google search.[10] As a whole, the publication of so many books at least confers that as a publisher their publications are all reliably sourcable and so is their market and history. I'm a bit concerned about deleting the stub simply because it isn't the most notable thing in the world - it is a publisher after all, but its function operation and details are all easily sourcable so on these grounds I'm leaning keep. It just needs work. 209.255.230.32 (talk) 12:23, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:28, 3 November 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, Mr.Z-man 05:42, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wifione Message 07:55, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kappa (band)

edit
Kappa (band) (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 hard to look at this article without getting a headache, but the subject doesn't appear to meet WP:NMUSIC. Its sources are either cited to the band's social media sites or essentially irrelevant (such as a recording studio's home page). I was unable to find evidence of notability. WP:TNT may also apply, as the article is a mess largely written by its subject. --BDD (talk) 23:43, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. --BDD (talk) 23:44, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. --BDD (talk) 23:44, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Giving you a headache is not a deletion rationale. What is a deletion rationale is the lack of citations to be found and some of the unverifiable claims to fame. While peacocking in places, the constant bolding of terms and external links does little to back up the claims made. Like producing tracks that were never used for CBS. 209.255.230.32 (talk) 12:14, 1 November 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, Mr.Z-man 05:34, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Wake Up to Wogan. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:10, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TOGs

edit
TOGs (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 fancruft Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 05:10, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge/redirect to either Terry Wogan or Wake Up to Wogan, both of which TOGs are associated with. I shouldn't imagine it would be too difficult to include a referenced section about them. The phrase has been around for a few years, and as an organisation, I believe they've done a lot of fundraising, etc. I've also heard them mentioned in other media. Paul MacDermott (talk) 15:28, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:23, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:24, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:24, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Early life of Pope John Paul II. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:09, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Karol Wojtyła (senior)

edit
Karol Wojtyła (senior) (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)

Note: this AFD concerns the article of Emilia Wojtyła as well.
Parents of Pope John Paul II. Unfortunately, outside of the enduring fame of their child, they themselves have achieved nothing in life to suggest they pass WP:BIO. And as notability is WP:NOTINHERITED, I am afraid those articles need to go. Per the merge request in the articles, a merger and redirect (which would keep the interwiki links to some other wikis, like Polish, where the proposal to delete those articles ended in no consensus; it's worth noting that pl wiki has much fewer policies on notability, up to and including no provision along the lines of our NOTIHERITED) to Early life of Pope John Paul II may be the best solution. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:47, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:23, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:23, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:23, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wifione Message 07:55, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Kohler

edit
Matt Kohler (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 actor. Only appeared in minor roles. Fails WP:BIO and WP:NACTOR. No sources other than imdb. Article's only author is Mattkohler (talk · contribs), an obious WP:COI problem.---GrapedApe (talk) 04:46, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:22, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:22, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Auto-bio created and maintained by two SPA. A search for sources supporting notability per WP:NACTOR proved futile. -- Sam Sailor Sing 01:52, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Unfortunately, another minor actor that has received minor roles (Soldier in Captain America, Doctor on Young and the Restless, etc.). I found the little Entertainment Weekly review here of the Captain Planet role but it does not mention him and even the Wikipedia article for the Captain Planet movie doesn't mention him. Basically, it seems he hasn't had a noticeable big break yet. Searches (including Google News) for his modelling, production company, his short indie film Typecast, adding "model actor", his Hart of Dixie role and his upcoming film Stripped provided nothing. I believe the fact that there's a gallery of photos makes this even more of a resume. Making yourself a Wikipedia article can get you attention but Wikipedia is not a resume service and, again, there's not much for an article here including that there aren't any in-depth third-party sources. I also found some news articles about a Broadway Matt Kohler, but considering, this Matt Kohler doesn't have any theatre productions, it's probably not him. As usual, no prejudice towards a future article or userfying. SwisterTwister talk 04:00, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wifione Message 07:54, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jolanta Niemcewicz

edit
Jolanta Niemcewicz (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)

Nothing here, nor in the search I did, suggested this passed WP:BIO notability requirements. What little coverage there is seems to primary concern her role as an activist / spokeswoman for a (planned or proposed, not existing, as far as I can tell) museum, and doesn't contribute significantly to her own notability. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:36, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:21, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:21, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:21, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 15:49, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Christmas Heart

edit
The Christmas Heart (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 references added. Charming.wiki (talk) 04:04, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:20, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:20, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wifione Message 07:53, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Swamp Cabbage (film)

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

A film that does not meet WP:NOTFILM. Unable to find reliable sources suggesting notability. There social media and blog hits, to be sure; fundraising links and primary refs; and of course other Ghits for unrelated uses of the term. But no significant independent coverage. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:52, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:55, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Week delete. Current references are pretty weak. Ping me if better refs are added so I can revise my vote if needed. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:39, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Google search shows almost exclusively self-published articles and social media. Ego White Tray (talk) 04:42, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete/userfy. The issue I have is that the coverage here is entirely local and not altogether focused on the film itself. There's some coverage of a fundraising dinner the directors held as well as an art exhibit, but I can't find anything other than that to show that this passes notability guidelines. I'm willing to change my opinion if someone can show that this got more coverage. There is some assertion of notability through various awards and grants the directors got, but none of them look to be the type that would actually give enough notability to warrant a keep. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:18, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:20, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning towards delete - I agree with the others users, this is a nice article and it has received some fair local news coverage, more than what others have received (which is zero sometimes). However, it still seems this was more of a local small film so there's not much there. It seems the film was released in 2012 after being worked since 2000 and was influenced by family history so that emphasizes more that it was a small film. It also doesn't seem it received much attention after it was released. Searches at Google News found nothing substantial. SwisterTwister talk 03:40, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the article is much improved, thanks to Tokyo Girl. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:20, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Puppet Master characters. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:08, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Andre Toulon

edit
Andre Toulon (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)

Lacks the independent reliable sources needed when writing about elements of fiction. No sources discuss the character from the out-of-universe perspective needed to establish that the character is notable independent of the films in which it appears. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 03:20, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge and redirect to List of Puppet Master characters. I really wish that there were more coverage of this character, but all I can find are sources that discuss the movies themselves. There's nothing out there that focuses on this specific character independent of film reviews and the like. Considering that this is a common problem for this series for some reason, I'm not entirely surprised. I found one source, but that could be argued to be a primary source since it's a book written by one of the actors that portrayed Toulon in one of the films. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:49, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 13:27, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 13:28, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 13:28, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Needs to be resubmitted properly. – Juliancolton | Talk 02:42, 18 November 2013 (UTC) This article is considered as vandalism WP:VANDAL. Club or organization does not exist. The article's creator Cristianoahaha could be in a conflict-of-interest. --Bernejay (talk) 02:01, 30 October 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) 01:21, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:03, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Pough

edit
Keith Pough (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 makes no assertion of notability. Keith Pough was an undrafted free agent who was released before playing a single snap of professional football. That's not enough to satisfy WP:NGRIDIRON and there is no non-trivial coverage. There are dozens of such prospective NFL players every year and they aren't notable for being on the preseason team. Further, as an article about a player not in the news (because he's not playing) it's not being updated. At the time I encountered the article on October 23 it still claimed he played for Buffalo, even though he'd been released nearly two months ago. After fixing the references I proposed the article for deletion; the article's author removed the PROD tag on October 29 with a minor edit (no edit summary). That's his right but it's unhelpful. In sum, it's a non-notable stub with no prospect of expansion. Mackensen (talk) 12:40, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 02:08, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 02:08, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral I'm will Bill for now. I'm finding a lot of stuff, but it appears to be local coverage or press releases from his school. I did find a secodn team all-American FCS division, which is considered a "national award" and a good number of these smaller publications that are quoting him. He doesn't pass WP:GRIDIRON but I could see a strong argument for WP:GNG. Oh, and the article does make an assertion of notability--not a very good one, but it is there.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:49, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Lots of coverage from the Washington Post and also the Charlotte Post ([11][12][13][14]) which, though that would be the local newspaper, still is one of the largest newspapers in America in terms of circulation. As such, I would think he meets GNG. Go Phightins! 23:46, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    My Highbeam subscription has lapsed. Are you able to read the article and indicate the nature of the coverage? Or, better, improve the article with that information? Mackensen (talk) 12:28, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Further Comment - I researched into the four articles mentioned by Phightins!. I could not pin anything down on the Charlotte Post, since Highbeam only lets you go so far without signing up. I tried looking at the newspaper itself online, but could not locate the article, although it obviously exists. I did look at the Washington Post online and found a number of articles that at least mentioned Keith Pough. It seems the question that needs answered is whether Keith Pough's history is notable enough to warrant an article. I am willing to change my vote, but I want to hear a bit more about whether he is notable by Wikipedia standards. Bill Pollard (talk) 13:30, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The articles, I would say, offer non-trivial coverage, though Pough is undoubtedly not the main part of the article. I will do some more careful reading in hopes of extrapolating worthy information from the article in the next few days. Should I forget, please ping me on my talk page, as I will likely be busy tomorrow and Saturday, and am likely to forget. Go Phightins! 02:49, 1 November 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) 01:09, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:01, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Ali Taheri

edit
Mohammad Ali Taheri (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)

According to the Wikipedia deletion policy this article does not meet the notability (WP:N), verifiability (WP:V) and reliable sources (WP:RS) nor what Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)criterion.

This page only consists of only one reliable and objective source which is a dissertation from Harvad University named "Science, Superstition, and the Supernatural in Iran" [1] by A Mohammadi Doostdar. The other sources are based on sources derived from Mohammad Ali Taheri's webpage. There are almost no existing third-party sources mentioning this particular person. Thus the article does not meet the notability criteria of Wikipedia and raises doubt about the reliability of this article.

Furthermore there are no reliable sources verifying his claims other than his own webpage which demonstrates the lack of adherance to the verifiability policy of Wikipedia.

Finally, since this particular person earns money from his pseudo-scientific therapeutic methods (which are mostly consisting of exorcism sessions)[2] and has financial interest in his courses, this article could be misunderstood as percieving Wikipedia as an advertisement hub which is not what Wikipedia is designated to function as.

References

  1. ^ http://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/9282603/MohammadiDoostdar_gsas.harvard_0084L_10215.pdf
  2. ^ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8y3eOKb6Jo
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sepamois (talk • contribs) 15:39, 28 October 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) 01:06, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have removed one major reference that did not back up the claims. The awards are mainly not sourced and google searches do not show them as major awards. The publications are all self published. The section on courses seems promotional. noq (talk) 11:36, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:01, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:01, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:01, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Muscat - Malta li Rrid Nghix Fiha

edit
Joseph Muscat - Malta li Rrid Nghix Fiha (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)

Notability and copyvio from http://election.josephmuscat.com/joseph-malta-li-rrid-nghix-fiha/ 🍺 Antiqueight confer 23:19, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 01:56, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 01:57, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't much in the article on WP:"The book is divided into three sections. The first part is a chronological biography, the second part is about Joseph’s influences and from where his beliefs emerged, whilst the final part was regarding Malta’s future and the Malta that Joseph Muscat wants to live in"
And the website:"the book is divided into three sections. The first part is a chronological biography, the second part is about Joseph’s influences and from where his beliefs emerged, whilst the final part was regarding Malta’s future and the Malta that Joseph Muscat wants to live in."-- 🍺 Antiqueight confer 14:29, 7 November 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) 00:56, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:00, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wizard of Odd

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

Only two sources, little relevant production, and no reception. Mouseinphilly (talk) 15:08, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 19:56, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 19:56, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 19:56, 20 October 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) 00:25, 28 October 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) 00:51, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I did find one review for the episode and my first instinct is to say "redirect" but this specific episode did get two of its artists an Emmy. Technically it does pass notability guidelines. I won't argue too hard against a consensus to redirect, though. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:36, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:00, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Baronh

edit
Baronh (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 does not establish notability independent of Crest of the Stars through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 15:07, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 19:49, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 19:50, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 19:50, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Here's a reputable third-party source: Stephen D. Rogers, "A Dictionary of Made-Up Languages: From Adunaic to Elvish, Zaum to Klingon -- The Anwa (Real) Origins of Invented Lexicons", pp. 32-33. If the description is too in-universe according to some, this can easily be solved in another way than bluntly deleting the whole article, although personally I cannot see how these few sentences are misleading to anybody. —IJzeren Jan Uszkiełtu? 17:05, 27 October 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) 00:25, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and consider merging to article on fictional languages or parent article series the language is used in. That there is coverage in a relaible source further establishes that this should be included even if not in a separate article. Candleabracadabra (talk) 13:27, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A no-brainer really, if the novel is encyclopedic (and there seems no doubt of that) then this information regarding its most notable feature is certainly encyclopedic. A merge might be considered (not even convinced of that), but even considering deletion is ridiculous, frankly. The content should be preserved, and under our copyleft licence that requires that the edit history should also be preserved. Andrewa (talk) 00:57, 6 November 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) 00:50, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:00, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Abh

edit
Abh (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 does not establish notability independent of Crest of the Stars through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 15:08, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 19:54, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 19:54, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 19:54, 20 October 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) 00:26, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to dab page ABH. --BDD (talk) 00:14, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge - Redirecting to a disambiguation and purging the content does not result in a net benefit to Wikipedia. Let's ponder merging this instead. Looking at the media, we see a collection of novels and short stories that total over 20 entries in the series. So the Abh are sort of a fictional ethnic group that is pivotal to the understanding of the novels and the anime and the film. Now the novelist won two major awards for the work... if not for the lack of citations I'd think that merging it or creating a page about the work (all-inclusive) for the series would be best. 209.255.230.32 (talk) 13:22, 8 November 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) 00:49, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wifione Message 07:51, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Khaigam killing, 2009

edit
Khaigam killing, 2009 (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 GNG and WP:LASTING Darkness Shines (talk) 15:00, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 19:49, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 19:49, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 19:49, 20 October 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) 00:27, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Candleabracadabra: It could probably go into Human rights abuses in Jammu and Kashmir article? Darkness Shines (talk) 11:19, 4 November 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) 00:49, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Secret account 18:35, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of extinct animals of India

edit
List of extinct animals of India (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 list only lists one animal, which, by the way, is not extinct. We already have article List of extinct animals of Asia. Vanjagenije (talk) 10:05, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 19:39, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 19:39, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 19:39, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article is really the intersection of two things "extinct" and "India." Animals don't respect national borders. Even the pink-headed duck was found in other countries besides India. Also the territory of India has changed over the years so a species living in Pakistan or Bangladesh was in the past living in India. It makes more sense to me to limit lists of extinct species to the continental level. And given that there are about 200 nations in the world that would save a lot of work and duplication. BayShrimp (talk) 00:16, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Good points. Obviously we are just referring to the current nation of India. I think some might wish to see a list of things that are now extinct in their nation. Just like having a list of notable people from a nation or other ___location, this is the sort of thing people may be interested in see, and it is valid encyclopedic content. A lot of kids would probably love to see what dinosaurs once roamed the state they are in, among other interesting looking creatures. Dream Focus 01:10, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Birds don't respect national or state borders either, however List of birds of Florida etc. are how things are commonly categorised. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:55, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is the standard method of categorisation for this sort of thing, and the list is appropriate and expandable. Sourcing is a problem but AfD is not for cleanup. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:55, 23 October 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) 00:32, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Why relist? Why not just close with keep since the votes are 3 to 1? I am the only delete voter and my opinion is more about practical considerations on WP than about any objections to the article itself. BayShrimp (talk) 01:12, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - largely in agreement with BayShrimp's original comments. That there are four other such lists don't -- I wouldn't say -- justify anything. List of birds of Florida, by comparison, is entirely sourced with clear inclusion criteria. The article in question here cites zero sources. Furthermore, anecdotally, lists of things claimed by a country and/or granted a particular status of existence are going to be hugely problematic without explicit standards (in this case, for example, that a source be given for both its extinction and population in India). --Rhododendrites (talk) 17:35, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My vote is still delete. One other thing about the article is that it seems to include dinosaurs who lived in India before it became a part of Asia. That seems a little crazy, but not the craziest thing on WP. BayShrimp (talk) 16:24, 4 November 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) 00:47, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I agree with BayShrimp, Keep lists of extinct animals to landmasses to reduce workload and to keep it simple. Retartist (talk) 03:41, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of extinct animals of Asia as a possible search-term. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:56, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - article now has a list of extinct animals of India, a sharply-defined set of inclusion criteria which are clearly distinct from (Extinct AND of Asia), so the article is rightly structured with unique contents. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:00, 9 November 2013 (UTC)\[reply]
    • Comment - Where is this sharply-defined set of inclusion criteria? Do you mean the name of the article? Extinct according to who? What does "of Asia" mean and why would it be of Asia and not of India? "List of kitties in my backyard" would have the same basic criteria, structure, and level of sourcing. (Exaggeration, of course, but without reliable sources, there's no list that couldn't be kept). I would refer again to List of birds of Florida as an example of a list that despite having a name also has specific inclusion criteria. --Rhododendrites (talk) 14:44, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Asia is a massive continent and India is an extremely large country within it, there are evidently several extinct animals native to the country which can be listed, though some tightening up of the inclusion criteria and description of the animals would help make this list useful. Sionk (talk) 14:45, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Subjecting the list to a little additional scrutiny...
    • Discoceras - article still lists it as being in India, nothing about extinction
    • Hyperodapedon - "Hyperodapedon is known from several species and has been found in many areas of the world, due to the continents being joined together in the supercontinent Pangaea during the Triassic." It goes on to list several places where fossils have been found, including India, but it seems this could be added to just about every geographically based list of extinct animals...
    • Javan rhinoceros - It's Javan. It's from Indonesia.
    • Pink-headed duck - Again not actually listed as extinct. Critically endangered and might be extinct, but not officially. --Rhododendrites (talk) 14:58, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

***The duck is extinct, all the experts say so, there just some rumor that it might still exist somewhere, but no evidence. Dream Focus 15:25, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      • The Javan rhinoceros is extinct in India and much of the world, but still found in one area. Hyperodapedon is extinct and should be on the list. Has any Discoceras been found that weren't fossils? Is that species still alive? Dream Focus 15:30, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Further proof there's no clear inclusion criteria here. The standard source for such things, as cited in the article: http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/100600468/0. The skeptical view is reflected in the article, but what kind of criteria would say "include it here if you don't think there's enough proof, even if the IUCN says otherwise." Javan rhino is from Indonesia, not India. Again, I would say what in God's name is the inclusion criteria if that, along with your OR/opinions on Discoceras and pink-headed duck mean it goes on the list?? --Rhododendrites (talk) 15:34, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Who is the authority we can look to for determining whether an animal that is not extinct is extinct in a particular country? The Javan Rhino is another one that the IUCN doesn't list as extinct. I ask skeptical that there is such local specificity because animals are moved around so much, but without actual knowledge that there is not one. --Rhododendrites (talk) 15:36, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I'm not sure I agree, but try as I may (that was facetiousness, don't worry), I can't find a consensus here to delete. Consider this either a "keep" or a "no consensus". – Juliancolton | Talk 02:48, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of film spoofs in Mad

edit
List of film spoofs in Mad (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)
List of television show spoofs in Mad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The fact that Mad is known for its movie and TV parodies is indisputable, as is the magazine's pop cultural impact from generation to generation. However, listing every single parody they've ever done is WP:IINFO to the extreme, especially with the artist/writer credits. The only sources are a fansite that lists every issue's content, and I could find no other sources discussing individual parodies in depth. This is just indiscriminate fancruft serving only a very narrow audience. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 08:10, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 19:38, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 19:38, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 19:38, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 19:38, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as overdetailed fancruft. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 19:40, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is obviously not indiscriminate as the scope is quite narrow. Complaining that it's fancruft is just WP:IDONTLIKEIT. AS Mad magazine, has a long history and is well-documented in detail by works such as Completely Mad: A History of the Comic Book and Magazine, it seems reasonable to maintain such spinoffs which tie the magazine to the major movies over the years. Warden (talk) 22:22, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, eminently educational and encyclopedic. Helps inform readers on issues related to both satire and parody. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 00:47, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's a highly WP:DISCRIMINATE list, even appears to be mostly complete. A lot of stuff on Wikipedia serves a narrow audience, long tail. There are many sources that mention Mad's spoofs of movies, they are cultural items of note. Green Cardamom (talk) 05:23, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. MAD spoofs things, surprise, surprise; this is well documented and not in question. There are probably a few very memoriable/notable spoofs that could be documented in the main MAD article, but to detail every spoof, specific to primary sources, is basically WP:TRIVIA and fails IINFO. (Eg: it is the equivalent of cultural references section which belong at a site like TV Tropes and not WP, unless they are noted by other source). --MASEM (t) 19:43, 21 October 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) 00:33, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The individual parodies do not seem to be notable. Is there enough sourced material to write an article: Mad film parody? I'm sure that would be a notable topic. The article could also have a link to the fansite mentioned as the source for this list so readers would still have the info. BayShrimp (talk) 01:31, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree with Bayshrimp. MAD film parodies individually are not notable, and a collection of them is an indiscriminate collection of information; however, an encyclopedic article that explores their effect on pop culture and popular conception of satire would be much different. Plus, it would live up to Cirt's "it's educational" argument. As it stands, this is no more encyclopedic than a list of all the famous people named Bob. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:02, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as over-detailed, with individual entries having no reliable coverage. This is essentially a "list of articles from a magazine", and precedent shows we don't have that level of detail for any type of article in any magazine. Notable examples can be covered in other ways, the full list can be transwikied to wherever they write obsessively about Mad magazine. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:48, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Normally we wouldn't keep articles of this sort, but the importance of the magazine and in particular this set of features in 20th century popular culture is so great, that it's justified. It might be worth a hunt for references to see if some individual spoofs have been discussed sufficiently in third party sources to justify articles on them. DGG ( talk ) 00:27, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
nope. I don't particularly like the content. But so many people do that it's of major cultural importance. DGG ( talk ) 01:54, 17 November 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) 00:46, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment a la Spy vs. Spy. I'd lean keep, per DGG, that "the importance of the magazine and in particular this set of features in 20th century popular culture is so great, that it's justified." On the other hand, per Hammer, it's terribly sourced. However, if it were ka-blown-up, then it could only be re-created with great difficulty. Can we incubate this one somewhere? Or as a Mad editor would write, "Plop!" Bearian (talk) 23:22, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Meets WP:LISTPURP as a valuable information source. Each entry spoofs a notable film (one where Wikipedia has an article) and is a good way for readers to locate a valuable social commentary on the film itself (by learning from Wikipedia that the commentary is in a Mad magazine and getting the magazine from the library). In that sense, the list also meets the navigation LISTPURP, but as a backward navigation page. All entries probably cannot be source to an independent source. I'm sure some can. How many can is a question that little effort is being made to answer, likely because of the lack of subsection in the article for independent sourcing. The "References" section probably should be renamed to something like "Notes" or "Index" and a new reference section be created for independent sources. NOT IINFO does not apply since the list a discriminate collection of information. The two NOT arguments could be raised are 'Wikipedia is not a directory' and 'Wikipedia is not a manual', but I don't see either of those fitting this situation. WP:LISTN provides the issue "a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources." If this makes its way to AfD again, I'd focus on the requirements WP:LISTN. However, I think it's too late in the discussion to get consensus on that give all the posts above. Merely because the "entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability," does not mean that independent sourcing is not important for lists. Zero effort towards using independent sourcing is a slap to the requirement that coverage be from reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The close should include a statement about independent sourcing to help get this list moving towards using those independent source that are out there. -- Jreferee (talk) 04:48, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • TPH: The article had three independent sources. That left only about 360 more independent sources needed to fully sources the tables. I created columns in each table for the independent sources.[16] I then added an independent source.[17] so that leaves only 359 more independent sources needed to fully sources the tables. If you list this article at AfD again in three or so months and there's been little to no effort to independently source each entry, I would likely change my position to delete until such time that editors come forth to independently source the information in the list. Feel free to ping me then. -- Jreferee (talk) 06:22, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Northamerica1000 - If you have time, please add the above sources to the columns I created in the tables. Preferably, put each reference in a Template:Citation. Independent sources can easily be found by searching "MAD magazine" with the name of the spoofed film (since the spoofed film name often is unique). -- Jreferee (talk) 06:33, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Google Books has numerous sources available that can be used to verify content in the article. I'll likely work on the article more if it's retained in the encyclopedia. Northamerica1000(talk) 07:04, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus, defaulted to keep--Ymblanter (talk) 09:48, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NUIG Literary and Debating Society

edit
NUIG Literary and Debating Society (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:RS and WP:GNG The Banner talk 18:46, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 19 October 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) 01:39, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notability is inherited from the University itself since every member of the University is also a member of the society, the society is integral of the University. Re WP:INHERIT: There are many articles on Wikipedia where we allow inheritance for practical concerns. INHERIT is an essay about general arguments to avoid in AfD discussions, it isn't a guideline or policy that disallows inheritance on Wikipedia when needed. In this case it would be impossible to merge an article of this length into National University of Ireland, Galway which itself is already very long so for practical reasons we need more than one article to cover the University. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 07:05, 6 November 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) 00:28, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a long established society with an important role in a very famous university. But I want to specifically dissociate myself from the previous "keep" argument-- notability is not inherited in this fashion, because if it were, every single student club, indeed every single student, at every university would be notable. It can be inherited in the other direction--if an organization has hundreds of notable members, then that organization can probably be considered notable. And in the case of a few very famous people, aspects of their life that would not otherwise be notable can become so--but that is a very rare assumption (e.g., we usually accept the notability of spouses of heads of state, but not heads of government). DGG ( talk ) 01:52, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This one is unique because every student in the university is a member by default, it is an integral part of the university, unlike nearly every other student club which has exclusivity, this one is totally inclusive. Thus an integral part of the University. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 03:02, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus, kept by default.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:55, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Snow White and the Seven Perverts

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

While some German sources may exist, I was unable to find significant coverage. WP:GNG and WP:NFILM are not met. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 23:11, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 11:02, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Original German language title: (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
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) 00:55, 27 October 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) 00:25, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 English language in Europe. From the below discussion it is apparent that this article does not and cannot conform to our editing standards. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 15:39, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

European English

edit
AfDs for this article:
European English (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 to establish the existence of this term in linguistics. Lacks citations for even the most basic definition of the term (there used to be a citation which was a link to another Wikipedia article which didn't contain any mention of this subject). The article has been nominated for deletion back in 2005, but was kept on the condition that better sources could be found. Now 8 years later the article is in the same sorry state, and I have been unable to find any sources to verify the reason for the existance of this article. User:The Roman Candle suggested turning the article into a redirect to British English, I would support such a decision. --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:00, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep(?), but as disambiguation page This article has a rather complex history, which I suspect the nominator has not examined in detail. The current article is completely different from both the version that went into the 2005 AfD and the version that came out of it.
Ironically, a total rewrite of the article as effectively a disambiguation page during that AfD was possibly the best version of the page so far, but one of the entries (oddly, given subsequent events, the one to British English) was removed before the AfD had ended. The article remained as a disambiguation page, though with a number of changes, until The Roman Candle first edited out one of the two remaining entries in September last year and then converted it into a redirect to British English this May.
The present article is almost entirely the work of an IP last month. In his or her favour, they spotted that we don't have a proper article on the almost certainly notable topic of the use of English in European institutions (though European Union acronyms, jargon and working practices does part of the job rather poorly) and obviously put quite a lot of work into producing one. Against this, they misinterpreted their intended subject matter as a dialect like Indian English rather than a manual of style and a truckload of jargon not entirely unlike Wikipedian English (or some other version of English for Specific Purposes, and have included a lot of what amounts to WP:SYNTHESIS. They have also created European English (disambiguation) which, with a little more editing, would do what this article was doing between 2005 and 2012 at least as well.
So, what to do? European English is a reasonable enough, if ambiguous, search term that I think it should be a disambiguation page - though I'm not sure whether this is better done by reverting to a pre-2012 version of this page and amending it or by copying over European English (disambiguation) and amending that. And we could do with a page with a less ambiguous title on the usage of English in EU institutions that is rather more than the glossary given in European Union acronyms, jargon and working practices - this probably could be done with major surgery, and the introduction of a distinctly wider range of sources, to the current article, but it may (to my slight regret) be easier to start again from scratch. PWilkinson (talk) 22:28, 19 October 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) 00:43, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article does not even assert that "European English" exists. It starts out by saying: "European English may refer to the English language as used by European organisations..." Redirect title to English language in Europe which has the info that readers are probably looking for in this article. A parallel example would be an article on "United States Spanish." True, lots of people in the United States do speak Spanish but it's not the same for all of them. "Spanish language in the United States" would be a good article.BayShrimp (talk) 02:36, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If this article was retitled to something like "Use of the English language by the European Union" it would take away my objection. BayShrimp (talk) 02:49, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The subject of the article does not exist. For Wikipedia to have such an article, which at best is pure OR, goes against what the project stands for. I agree that articles such as 'Use of English in Europe' have some merit, but to proclaim the existence of so-called 'European English' is not the business of Wikipedia. The Roman Candle (talk) 18:57, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is a distinct topic, and the article seems to be based on sources. I agree, though, that it should be moved to European Union English or EU English. DGG ( talk ) 00:16, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The definition contains no sources, thus the subject itself has questionable notability. It simply fails to establish that "European English" exists. A move would not solve any of those problems. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:29, 8 November 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) 00:24, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Michig (talk) 09:09, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rail transport in Inner Mongolia

edit
Rail transport in Inner Mongolia (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 useful context. only "Rail transport in Inner Mongolia is administered by the People's Republic of China." GZWDer (talk) 10:52, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is actually quite a lot on rail transport in Inner Mongolia. Please look at the categories. Biscuittin (talk) 20:50, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mongolia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 03:48, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. 71.237.195.240 03:48, 2 November 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.237.195.240 (talk) [reply]
-→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 03:57, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 4 November 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, The Bushranger One ping only 00:12, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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_November_9&oldid=1142630719"