Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 September 14

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 13 September	15 September >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was no consensus. —Darkwind (talk) 06:22, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of airliners by maximum takeoff weight

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

PROD removed by IP on WP:ITSUSEFUL grounds. PROD rationaile, still relevant, is that this is a incomplete, mostly unreferenced, and rather WP:SYNTH-ish list that is a "comparison list" compared by a criterion that isn't broadly used in the real world. The usual comparison for airliners is number of seats, and below that, range; MTOW isn't something often, if ever, used as a benchmark, and when it is it's in pounds, not metric tons, and as a comparison list of airliners it makes some truly ridiculous "comparisons" (Boeing 747-400 vs Saab 2000 for instance). And changing the scope of the list from "airliners" to "aircraft", as was done as part of the deprodding makes its scope impossibly broad. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:38, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:35, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:35, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:35, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This seems to be WP:IDL and WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP applies. Imperial vs. Metric, two articles AN-225 and A380-800 both use metric (and bracketed imperial) in their articles, so claiming the wrong units is pointless, and usage probably depends upon where you live. Airliners to Aircraft is probably a good idea to include the AN-225. The heaviest/biggest is something used in the real world, especially by the popular press, and programs like Big, Bigger, Biggest. Suggest rename to something like List heaviest aircraft by maximum takeoff weight.Martin451 (talk) 03:43, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Er, what? In aviation, metric tons are never used. Pounds almost always, sometimes kilograms, worldwide. A List of heaviest aircraft might well be valid, but this is not it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:07, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom way to not useful, and way too wide a net cast. Also if you where in Aviation you'd realize that Aviation is always done in Imperial measurements. It's an international standard so that pilots don't get confused going from one area to another. Caffeyw (talk) 08:02, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It might be wise to tell the UK Civil Aviation Authority who worryingly think MTOW is in kilograms.[1] Thincat (talk) 10:00, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ICAO standards are for weights/heights to be Imperial. Just because a CAA decides to publish a publication locally doesn't absolve them of the need to publish information in standard format. Look at METARs, TAFs, Sectional Charts, etc they always use the same measurements. Canada a few years ago had nearly a very bad crash because of the fact they tried to locally use metric measurements. It caused a plane to not have enough fuel loaded. While they can certainly publish in metric, by international agreement they must always provide data in Imperial measurements for standard publications. It traces back to when Imperial was the world wide standard. I'd much prefer metric, but it's just not a priority for change, and with the US still using it I doubt it will change soon. Caffeyw (talk) 12:11, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Airports in Europe or Africa tend to charge fees based on MTOW in metric tons, e.g. Frankfurt and Cairo... JochenvW (talk) 11:07, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We have the {{convert}} template to convert between metric and imperial units (and for a general encyclopaedia I'd say that both should be displayed) so that is irrelevant to whether the article should be deleted. I'm not knowledgeable in the subject area but as a lay person, comparing aircraft by the maximum takeoff weights and the other parameters listed here is both useful and interesting. A quick google seems to show that lists such as these are used in airport planning, so it's not an irrelevance (but as already noted it is relevant to popular culture too which is just as valid). Finally, it is not WP:SYNTH as it does not combine two or more sources in such a way as to say anything that is not already in a reliable source. We are simply tabulating independently verifiable facts from multiple sources. Thryduulf (talk) 13:37, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The point of the units comment is not that they are imperial or metric. It's that they're in a unit that is never used, regardless of system. And how would we deal with the list being WP:INDISCRIMINATE? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:27, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - The unit or units being wrong is something that can very easily be fixed and is not a reason why this should be deleted. A list is indiscriminate only if it cannot have a defined criteria for inclusion and still be encyclopaedic. The inclusion criteria for this list just needs clarifying and applying - i.e. it needs cleanup not deletion. It also needs a better title, but that too is not a reason to delete it. Thryduulf (talk) 09:22, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - "Indiscriminate" can also mean that the defined criteria are impossibly large. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:27, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an indiscrimanate list if it was to include every airliner it is short by a few hundred entries, and despite the lack of many entries it includes aircraft that are not airliners but large transport aircraft that said what remains has no encyclopedic value. MilborneOne (talk) 18:39, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- A list being incomplete is not a reason to delete the list, but to complete it. Every airliner would not be indiscriminate if "airliner" can be defined for the purposes of the list, and we have no trouble defining it elsewhere on Wikipedia (e.g. Airliner and Category:Airliners). If there are entries in the list that do not meet the inclusion criteria then they can easily be removed without necessitating the deletion of the list. As I noted above this needs cleanup not deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 09:22, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - "Airliner" is easily defined. And that definition makes the scope of the list impossibly - one might even say, indiscriminatly - large. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:27, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve IMO, this article should completely revamped to only include airliners in production. Also, the heaviest type of each aircraft model, rather than including each individual type, should be listed. In addition, ONLY those aircraft made to become airliners should be included; List of large aircraft is for the AN-225 and other cargo/military aircraft. Hjay50 (talk) 17:24, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If kept, "Airliners since 1980" or something might be better, as "in production" is the "current/modern" sort of thing that is generally discouraged. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:38, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up - Change to standard units, decide which aircraft should be included (please note that trying to include all aircraft in wikipedia itself is not considered "impossible" nor overly large, AND that all aircraft in the list already have an article, and thus references.) MTOW seems to be a widely used measurement in aviation, and so this is a perfectly valid list. Hardly "indiscriminate". The Steve 10:19, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Including all aircraft in Wikipedia itself =/= including all aircraft in a single list, which would be in the megabytes in size if done. Now, as I've said before, if a tight rescoping can be arranged, this might well be valid - but can we perhaps suggest/come up with what that scope should be? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:28, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and clean up good overview for quick checks. JochenvW (talk) 11:07, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ITSUSEFUL - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:06, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; unmaintained and unmaintainable list. We have more complete & more accurate coverage in other articles. bobrayner (talk) 09:34, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LISTN. I'm unfamiliar with the subject area, but a search of the 'net doesn't indicate this to be a generally recognised criterion for comparing aircraft. If deleted, I'd support undeletion/userfication if reworked (and subsequently moved) to form the basis of list of heaviest aircraft or similar. In this case, historical encyclopedic content should be retained for reference, rather than only including airliners in production as suggested above. -- Trevj (talk) 10:53, 26 September 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) 04:11, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OS X version history

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

Information already covered at History of OS X. Zach Vega (talk to me) 22:37, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:34, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:34, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's nearly empty, unreferenced, and can only duplicate information from another article. If it actually had any content in it, it would be a content fork. There's nothing to merge, and a redirect seems unnecessary; however, if people really want to make a redirect, that's fine. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:08, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – This probably should have been speedy deleted back in 2012 under CSD:A10, aside from the fact there's no content whatsoever. Don't see a need for a redirect. — MusikAnimal ^talk 19:14, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—Notable topic that's already covered elsewhere. Nothing to merge; wouldn't object to a redirect. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 03:36, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - We don't need this and History of OS X. --Lost tiree, lost dutch :O (talk) 03:14, 21 September 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) 04:11, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Welch (baseball)

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

Fails WP:GNG. I don't know where those bare url's are supposed to go, but a Google News Archive search doesn't turn up anything to suggest he meets GNG, only the briefest of mentions. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:36, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:36, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:37, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:34, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Rlendog (talk) 16:36, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete So he was going to return from his mission in 2010 and resume playing baseball. Did he resume playing baseball. It is quite possible he has graduated from BYU by now. The fact that no one has updated this article in the last 3 years to mention more of his career, suggests he is not notable. What he did up to that point certainly isn't.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:48, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.. Nothing notable here... According to baseball cube [2] he did return from his mission and played 3 more seasons at BYU, finishing up this past season. He was not drafted and his college stats are unremarkable.Spanneraol (talk) 05:06, 17 September 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) All parties, including the nominator, have achieved consensus that cleanup, not deletion is the answer here. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:40, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

4-string banjo

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

This article is factually inaccurate or, at the very least, titled in such a way that makes it completely misleading. The fact that it cites no references just makes it that much worse. Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 20:38, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:00, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:00, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep None of the cited reasons are reasons for deletion; they are reasons for copy-editing. Template it to death, and maybe someone with enough knowledge of the instrument will come by and fix it. --(AfadsBad (talk) 14:49, 11 September 2013 (UTC))[reply]

The section for this instrument in the banjo article is already far more detailed than this stand alone article. Its redundant and woefully inadequate. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 05:51, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Both five and four string banjos are significant stand alone article topics, while the banjo article could be better developed into a general article without the two large chop-out sections. The four- and five-string American banjos, just the strummed and picked instruments without the variations, are major instruments alone and merit their own articles. A featured article on the resonator five string would be awesome. (AfadsBad (talk) 13:29, 12 September 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Agreed - But the current version is garbage. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 18:18, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't exactly disagree with that. However, I think that the individual article could get the necessary type of attention it needs, but that the topic is lost in the banjo article with the heavy emphasis on picking banjos. --(AfadsBad (talk) 20:21, 12 September 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Keep A legitimate content fork from Banjo. The correct solution to an unreferenced article is this, not send it to AfD. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:02, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not recommending a permanent delete, just of the current drivel. A proper article needs to be constructed. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 18:18, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Banjo#Four-string banjos for now. The content of the article is weak and biased towards the Brazilan variant. Eventually, the right thing to do is to split the four-stringers out of the banjo article. I've tried to beef that up in the past, but finding reliable sources that trace the history of the different four-string variations was an obstacle.—Kww(talk) 18:12, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - in hindsight this would have been a better move. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 18:18, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of sources, but part of the problem is the current section puts all four string banjo into the same class, whereas some were intermediate instruments along the way of developing other instruments. Still, I much prefer a separate article. --(AfadsBad (talk) 18:29, 12 September 2013 (UTC))[reply]

In the long-term, the right answer is to have an overview section in banjo, most of the content of Banjo#Four-string banjos in 4-string banjo, and breakout articles per type when there's enough material (see bass banjo for an example). In the short term, the current content of 4-string banjo should just be a paragraph in Banjo#Four-string banjos.—Kww(talk) 20:01, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Any recommendation of a similar article to use as template both in term of the instrument varieties and their respective history? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 02:38, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've put some examples on my talk page, but just to recap here - look at clarinet (a GA) and its breakout articles E-flat clarinet and bass clarinet for some suggestions. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:02, 13 September 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) 22:26, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As the initiating editor, I think that we've achieved a fairly good course of action. Keep the article as a separate topic, bring over content from the Banjo article, and then expand and further cite the article where appropriate. The Brazil instrument content may stay, but only in its appropriate context. I recommend that this AfD be closed as "Keep". --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 04:03, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All you have to do is say the magic words "I choose to withdraw this AFD". I'm the only editor that even came close to a delete vote, and I wouldn't have any objection to that plan. I'll take care of the mechanics of closing.—Kww(talk) 05:40, 15 September 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. One cannot merge if the destination article doesn't exist, but I would be happy to userfy upon request so the article can be rewritten as a list. Regarding other members of the category, they must be listed for AfD separately as they were not part of this nomination. —Darkwind (talk) 06:29, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lucas Garner

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

This character does not establish notability independent of Known Space 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) 16:40, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into List of Known Space characters. Article needs to be created, obviously. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:08, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is an extensive body of critical work concerning Niven's writings; he has been a leading SF writer for nearly fifty years. The nominator has made no significant effort to assess the subject's notability, and the flimsy boilerplate rationale they advance is unconvincing and unsupported by rational analysis. It is evident that the nominator is ignoring WP:BEFORE and engaging in inappropriate fait accompli behavior. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:48, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Age doesn't implicitly mean there is available coverage, and while I'm sure the novels can probably be covered quite well, simply asserting that such information exists for this specific character without providing any just because of a problem with my nomination helps nothing. I'm focusing on fictional topics, so there is little chance for much variation in my rational. You may have a problem with that, but I would ask that you instead focus on the status of the article. TTN (talk) 23:57, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

given that you are listing things for deletion by acident the evidence suggests that your level of care is approximately nill.Geni (talk) 02:41, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Or that emulator articles all look the same, so having multiple ones open at once in different tabs made it easy to do the wrong one. TTN (talk) 14:58, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As someone with over 10K deletions I beg to differ.Geni (talk) 16:08, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into List of Known Space characters or delete. As far as I can recall, Garner isn't the main character in any of Niven's works. We should also consider deleting other denizens of Category:Known Space characters such as Nick Sohl, Alice Jordan, Peter Nordbo and Tyra Nordbo. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:56, 10 September 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) 22:20, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete article currently has zero sources and a search of google books [3] does not provide much possibility that WP:GNG can be met.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:04, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article creator hadn't been notified. I've just done so (even though s/he hasn't edited since May 2012). -- Trevj (talk) 11:01, 26 September 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) 04:12, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Willpower Tour

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

WP:NOTCRYSTAL applies. Tours get cancelled. If the tour is notable then it will, when it is in progress, be covered in WP:RS. In August 2013 a tour in December 2013 is not notable, it is a plan. Fiddle Faddle 15:29, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Delete: If the tour has not been confirmed, then Delete. If it is real then Merge within the "tours and promotion" section within the album's article. 11Block |talk 00:31, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:47, 6 September 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) 22:10, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm unable to find coverage for this tour in reliable sources; does not appear to meet WP:NCONCERT TOUR at this time. Gong show 06:20, 15 September 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) 04:14, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Colton

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

a) Wikpedia is not a personal homepage or blog, b) the article was written as an autobiography by the subject himself and no considerable third party involvement has shown any initiatve to correct the issues, c) the only source linked does not support the information cited d) nor are there any other reliable sources, and finally e) the subject is not notable. Tnakiped (talk) 22:10, 14 September 2013 (UTC) f) There are almost no links to this article, it is an orphan. Tnakiped (talk) 22:14, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, leaning delete at this point. A quick Google news archive search shows that he did indeed work for ABC, at least, but other than a few bylines, the only things I am seeing that detail anything Colton himself is doing are self-published through sites like prweb. Of relevance, Mr. Colton's name has been going around Reddit and legal blogs due to a conflict between Reddit and "Boca News Now", a web newspaper that Colton apparently operates. That may draw people to this AFD (I only came to this after reading the Popehat story). Reso lute 22:41, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He has not done anything that makes him notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:35, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with delete. I was also sent here from the controversy but looking at this objectively there is no way Mr Colton should be allowed to use Wikipedia as a advertising tool. The page was created by him and almost the exact same information is on his user page also. I could not find anything of note about this man outside of his own self aggrandizing and self published works. The whole page is thinly veiled spam for his consulting business. The page violates Wikipedia policy on biographies of living persons. Mathswiz (talk) 15:26, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. Article is self-promoting and little else. IMO, the ABC work is irrelevant. (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 23:18, 16 September 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. WP:NPASR and no prejudice against a merge discussion. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:16, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gladvertising

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

Delete - This article is not notable to be added on Wikipedia and this article looks like written for promotion and advertising purpose. AdamSmithUS (talk) 15:30, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge/Redirect~~ to facial recognition. Candleabracadabra (talk) 04:37, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is an article on Facial recognition system but this subject is something more advanced. I have read about it and I believe the subject is notable. Here it's covered in Wired for example. Keep Candleabracadabra (talk) 04:39, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ This is an odd one, and I think I'm on shaky policy grounds voting for its deletion, but this could possibly run afoul of being a neologism. My issue with this is that the term itself was invented by a digital signage technology firm -- 3MGTG -- seeking to promote a product it claimed it was bringing to market. 3MGTG commissioned the "report" that explores the concept and term, essentially as a PR effort. Based on some research into this on Google, the term and report definitely drew some coverage at the time of the release of the report in summer 2011, but it hasn't done anything since. This is potentially a fascinating topic, but if we cover it in this way we're basically helping a 3M digital signage division get the word out about a concept it's brought to market (I think). Maybe a bit of WP:NOTADVERT as well. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 19:40, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep: apparent bad-faith nomination by a blocked sockpuppet account. No prejudice against immediate renomination by an editor in good standing.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 21:48, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's my understanding that this does not apply if an editor in good standing !voted the same as the bad-faith nominator, as I have. "...if subsequent editors added substantive comments in good faith before the nominator's banned status was discovered, the nomination may not be speedily closed (though the nominator's opinion will be discounted in the closure decision)." ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 01:52, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:45, 6 September 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) 22:09, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to facial recognition system. There's relevant information to a real subject here, but it's not something that should have its own page. --erachima talk 00:47, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'd support merging to facial recognition system. Changing vote to Merge. Probably the only way to consensus here, and that seems reasonable :). ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 14:06, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:17, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dudley Brown

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

Not a notable individual. Furthermore, this individual is apparently a scam artist and his organization (National Association for Gun Rights) is nothing more than a scam organization. The content of the bio article on Dudley Brown (as well as the NAGR article) appears to have been created by Dudley Brown himself and largely fabricated (for example, contrary to what the bio article says, Dudley is NOT a college graduate). The internet is replete with info on this scam being run by NAGR and Dudley Brown. Examples: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. ROG5728 (talk) 21:33, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~Keep - just a note, if he's a scam artist, it doesn't necessarily exclude him from notability. In fact, if any reliable sources discuss him/his alleged scamming in-depth, that makes him notable. This might just be a question of content (i.e., false content) instead of one of notability. Potential sources about Brown: http://blogs.denverpost.com/thespot/2013/07/29/dudley-brown-recall-election/98956/ http://www.5280.com/magazine/2013/08/Dudley-browns-war http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/03/dudley-brown-hunt-democrats_n_3007267.html http://www.denverpost.com/recent/ci_22650330/colorado-gun-lobbyist-says-group-not-connected-gay?source=rss http://kdvr.com/2013/07/18/dudley-brown-defends-protesting-at-memorial/ — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 23:47, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Either way, most (or all) of the content in the Dudley Brown article seems to have been falsified or glamorized (not to mention self-authored), so I don't see any point in keeping it. ROG5728 (talk) 23:53, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the subject's notable, and this can be proven with verifiable, reliable sources, then the article being in a poor state isn't really a reason to delete it. You should take a look at WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, particularly the section "Surmountable problems". I'm going to give the article a quick one-over and see what I can do with it for a start. — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 23:57, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, also, another source: http://kdvr.com/2013/04/03/dudley-brown-named-in-lawsuit-over-anti-civil-unions-mailer/ — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 00:23, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- As Cymru.lass points out above this nomination is not based on any of the recognized criteria for deletion. As Cymru.lass points out above, nominator's concerns, like that the article says Brown graduated, could be addressed by simple editing.

THe Nomination asserts Brown is a con artist -- but the only substantiation for this assertion are from gun rights blog sites. These aren't WP:Reliable sources. A google news search for "Dudley Brown" scam seems to find no genuine matches. What the blog-sites say is that Brown's organization targets gun enthusiasts with email requests for donations. The blog-sites say Brown's organization claims Brown's pro-gun activities put him at risk, and he needs financial support for legal defense -- but that Brown has not actually undertaken any pro-gun act worth supporting, or meriting opposition from anti-gun groups, or legal authorities.

The blog-sites the nomination cites seem to be saying Brown is an opportunist, trying to cash in on the huge amount of money gun-enthusiasts have demonstrated they will send to the NRA. Some of those blog-sites seem to be speculating that Brown is not a genuine gun-enthusiast at all, but is actually a closet-liberal, whose genuine plan is to reduce the NRA's effectiveness by diverting donations from the NRA to his own group. I see no RS backing up the gun-enthusiast blog-sites' claims. If there were RS to back up those claims they would add to Brown's notability, not erode it.

The NRA is free to run its own wiki, with its own rules. If Brown is a notable individual, suppressing coverage of him, to protect the cause of gun-rights, is not consistent with the wikipedia's policies. Geo Swan (talk) 16:58, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GeoSwan, virtually anyone on any gun-related website on the internet recognizes NAGR as a scam, regardless of whether or not you found news sources supporting it; the sources I cited are only the tip of the iceberg. A simple Google search gives thousands of results. The point is, the article would be a tiny, irrelevant stub if we were to go through and delete all of the random misinformation added by Brown when he created it. The article currently violates a number of Wikipedia policies and it was created for the sole purpose of self-promotion anyway. Deleting it has nothing to do with the "NRA running its own wiki" or "suppressing coverage of him to protect the cause of gun rights." Grow up. ROG5728 (talk) 01:04, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote: "The article currently violates a number of Wikipedia policies ... and it was created for the sole purpose of self-promotion anyway."

If you think the article violates policies is there a reason why you didn't list those policy violations in your initial nomination? Is there a reason why you haven't listed those policy violations in your followup?
You do realize that deletion is not the recommended solution for all instances when articles lapse from policy? When an article on a notable topic lapses from WP:NPOV, for instance, the recommended approach is to rewrite the portions of the article that show bias.
You may not realize this, but your assertion that "...the article currently violates..." leaves open the possibility that you believe that the policy lapses you think you see are fixable -- and are thus not grounds for deletion.
With regard to "...it was created for the sole purpose of self-promotion anyway." I looked at the contribution history, I saw no evidence that a single individual created the article. I spent some time looking at the references to the article. I saw real RS, like CNN, quoting Mr Brown as if he was a significant, legitimate figure in the pro-gun movement. I don't see where the article goes beyond what the RS support.
The revision history shows exactly two edits by User:DudleyBrown [4] & [5]. These two edits were not self-promotion. They did not lapse from WP:COI. 75 other people edited this article. Are you asserting that you somehow know that one of those other people is secretly Dudley Brown? Or that several of those other people are secretly Dudley Brown? This is a very serious allegation, for which you have offered exactly zero proof.
You write: "...anyone on any gun-related website on the internet recognizes NAGR as a scam..."
It is simply not relevant what gun-related blog-sites recognize when you can't find any WP:RS that assert Brown, or NAGR are scams. Your gun-related blog-sites are not RS.
Suppose you find some genuine RS that say Brown was a con-artist who employed scams? Those RS would help establish Brown's notabiity. Anyone who fooled the MSM into thinking he was a legitimate gun advocate, only to be exposes as a fraud artist a decade later? That would be notable. Geo Swan (talk) 03:16, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE. This article is clearly self promotion and we cannot allow it to stand. If we do, then we will see thousands if not tens of thousands of people seeking notoriety by starting articles like this one, just to see their name and face on Wikipedia. If someone wants their 15 minutes of fame, let them do it someplace else.--RAF910 (talk) 20:07, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not a valid reason for deletion. I would suggest you take a look at WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, particularly the section "Surmountable problems". — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 22:09, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - You are mistaken...self-promotion is strictly prohibited by Wikipedia and this article is clearly self-promotion.--RAF910 (talk) 23:24, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Self promotion is not allowed. However, no one has offered any justification to back up the claim this article contains self promotion.
    If you are going to offer links to wikidocuments to back up your arguments, could you please try harder to make sure the wiidocuments actually do back up those arguments? Wikipedia: Self-promotion says nothing about deleting articles that have had self-promotional material added to them.
    
    76 individuals edited this article. If it was the work of a single non-notable individual, who made up a fantasy article about himself or herself, it would qualify for speedy deletion. However, when we have an article where dozens of good faith individuals made over a hundred good faith edits, there is no way that article should be deleted if the subject of the article added or rewrote paragraphs of self-promotional material. Rather we should merely excise or rewrite the self-promotional paragraphs. Geo Swan (talk) 03:34, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - I second what Geo Swan said. If you'd take a look at the page I linked above (WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions), specifically WP:SURMOUNTABLE, you'll see what I mean. If an article's subject is notable, self-promotion is a surmountable problem. — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 18:04, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, almost all of the "good faith" edits on the page history were nothing but cleanup attempts (e.g. removals of blatant NPOV violations like these ones and this one). About 90% of the edits I see on the page history there are reverts and blanking. When the article was first created (and for years afterward), it was obviously filled with severe violations of WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:COI. Now that the article has been cleaned up to some extent (thanks in part to Cymru.lass), there's not much content left over, and much of it is either not noteworthy or else not directly related to Brown himself. For example, the article says "At the Colorado GOP convention in April 2012, RMGO and Dudley Brown supported pro-gun candidates..." So what? Is that really noteworthy? Of course not, and the whole article is like that. It's pure fluff. It could be reduced to a single sentence without losing any valuable content. ROG5728 (talk) 03:55, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Edit history doesn't really matter. If vandalism, violations of NPOV and COI are such a huge deal, the page can be protected. The question is, is this guy notable? I'm leaning towards yes. He's had significant coverage in more than one reliable source. The rest of the issues with this article are surmountable problems, and as you can see, editors are already at work on that. — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 18:04, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:23, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—A zillion G-News hits; here are three random ones [1] [2] [3]

If the article is broken (and I cast no opinion on if it is or not), then fix it. AfD is not for content cleanup. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 16:10, 6 September 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) 22:09, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Many reliable sources have been identified above; AFD is not cleanup. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 20:20, 15 September 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. —Darkwind (talk) 06:34, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2012 Butler Bulldogs women's soccer team

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

The find sources function above is unreliable for seasonal articles as it searches for "2012 Butler Bulldogs women's soccer team" as one single term because it is in quotation marks. If you search "Butler Bulldogs women's soccer team" and "2012", it returns more than seven times as many results. Going further, if you search "Butler Bulldogs" "Women's soccer" "2012", it returns more than 660 times as many results. Both of those examples provide pertinent results for the article at hand while still excluding wikipedia as a possible source. City boy77 (talk) 03:46, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable sports season. No independent refs that mention this team. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:54, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article follows the same conventions as many other collegiate sports articles for individual seasons. Since Stuartyeates pointed out the shortcomings of the article, I provided many more citations that are not published by Butler. The sources provide both verifiability and neutrality. City boy77 (talk) 03:33, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I acknowledge that there are now sources. The problem is that each of the games is now sourced to a non-independent source---namely their opponent. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:00, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:33, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:33, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:34, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:34, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. What is our policy with regards to the notability of sports event? I am seeing a lot of such articles on Wikipedia, and the coverage is rarely in mainstream, reliable sources. This is indeed a problem worth wider discussion. (Please ping me if any comments are left for me) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:21, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The policy is at WP:NSEASONS, User:Piotrus. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:48, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable sports season, fails WP:NSEASONS and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 09:50, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ Keep - WP:NSEASONS provides that "In cases where the individual [college] season notability is insufficient for an article, multiple seasons may be grouped together in a single article. This grouping might be based on head coaches, conference affiliation, or any other reasonable standard that results in sufficient coverage for the period to warrant an article." I'm not saying I do think this season falls short, but if others think it does perhaps we could merge it and the 2013 article into something like Butler Bulldogs in Atlantic 10 women's soccer? Clavdia chauchat (talk) 18:28, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to keep, because it's well-referenced and the two delete votes only amount to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I still think a merge would also be an acceptable outcome. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 21:29, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It's not a case of don't like it at all. It's to do with the fact that there is nothing in the article that fulfills the requirements for college articles in WP:NSEASONS. Additionally, although sourced, the sources are just to WP:ROUTINE reports on various college sites detailing match reports. There is no evidence that this season has received any notable coverage outside of the usual basic match reporting. Fenix down (talk) 11:28, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes WP:GNG and provides season-specific information for Butler Bulldogs women's soccer. Hmlarson (talk) 22:18, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per GS, notion that club passes GNG is untrue as though a wide section of refs are provided, these are no more that routine match reports. Not a national championship season, no indication that this is anything other than your usual bog-standard reasonable season performance. Can't really see what merging seasons would achieve, there is nothing I can see to indicate that they have done anything in particular of significance in that conference to date. Fenix down (talk) 12:57, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:04, 6 September 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) 22:06, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—Fails every single aspect of WP:NSEASONS and all coverage of this particular season is WP:ROUTINE. Article is 10% prose and 90% statistics, which is specifically what NSEASONS warns against. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Livitup (talk • contribs) 14:04, 17 September 2013‎
Delete Fails WP:NSEASONS and WP:GNG with only routine sports coverage.204.126.132.231 (talk) 19:40, 17 September 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. —Darkwind (talk) 06:35, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Matsuricon

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

Limited coverage by reliable and independent sources. Esw01407 (talk) 01:24, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can any sources be found here? [6] - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:18, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find anything worth mentioning, mostly press releases and sites that would most likely not meet notability. Esw01407 (talk) 13:43, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - In my books I see minor mentions, MatsuriCon is listed by name and website on a single page divided into four regions of the United States (and 1 in Canada). The two pages contain 33 conventions and Matsuricon is one of six conventions listed in the central region. This can be found on page 210 of Understanding Manga and Anime by Brenner. People within the anime industry also frequent the event and have some small journalism as a result, but while the individual page is of borderline to questionable notability the conventions themselves are pages that are difficult to work on. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:12, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you find and cite the book? A mention in a book is notable, depends on what it is though. I would like more secondary sources on this and so far have found nothing newsworthy. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:32, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have added the book Understanding Manga and Anime, which is what I like User:ChrisGualtieri is referring to. Kyuukurochan (talk) 04:21, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is not much of a note, but it is one of the few cons listed. I'd say the mere mention over other lesser cons says something, but that is my personal belief. The more popular conventions are listed there and most small (even 1000+ visitors) are not listed.ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:53, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - More sources have been added from the Columbus Dispatch citations following the addition of the section on the "Distant Worlds" event of 2012. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyuukurochan (talk • contribs) 03:02, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like what you added ([7]) is a press release. Press releases just say what and when the event is, but does not go into a detailed chat about the subject. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:22, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - Based on what I have seen so far I do not see any reliable non press release sources covering the event. AnimeCons.com is a primary source, animecons.com just talks about the guests (As opposed to the convention its-self) and the Columbus Dispatch is a press release. Im not sure what the Columbus Monthy is and would reconsider pending a citation of a book of some sort as mentioned above. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:31, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Columbus Dispatch is a third party newspaper column in Columbus, OH. It is a source listed on the sister convention Ohayocon and had been deemed a useful source. Columbus Monthly is also owned by them. Kyuukurochan (talk) 03:55, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OSE @ Ohayocon. It might be posted by a newspaper, but it very much looks like a press release, it has no coverage from the convention. Esw01407 (talk) 20:47, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source Question - I know that this source has been offered after a search, but I'm not sure about the newsworthy aspect of it, though it does cover the event. http://www.alltasteexplosion.com/?p=3071 Kyuukurochan (talk) 03:41, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be a fan source and I do not believe would meet being a reliable source. Esw01407 (talk) 20:47, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It may not be the best damn source, but we need sources of any type here. "Matsuricon teamed up with popular Final Fantasy concert, “Distant Worlds”" COME ON! That's really big. It has had special guests like "Cathy Weseluck, best known as Spike the Dragon from “My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic!”" This is notability, this provides context, this is a reason for its inclusion. More sources like this are bound to exist, whether or not they reach New York Times level is irrelevant, it gives a reason why it is notable. After all, how many places get an international and special orchestra visit from Nobuo Uematsu's "Distant Worlds"? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:50, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't really agree with your reasoning, why lower Wikipedia's standard for one page? Other conventions have no problems getting the bare minimum of sources that provide adequate information. Nobuo Uematsu has appeared at US conventions eight times, so it's not exactly rare (According to animecons.com). Esw01407 (talk) 13:24, 13 September 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) 22:05, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. Nominator withdrew and no other delete !votes are present. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:40, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Young People Matter

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

Disputer PROD. Reason was "While there is a strong possibility that this is a notable organisation, the article fails to assert its notability, and does not verify it in reliable sources. Without these items it may not remain here. It is not notable simply because it is a charity and does good works." Fiddle Faddle 22:02, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn My view is that the concerns have been addressed. Fiddle Faddle 22:59, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 14 September 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. —Darkwind (talk) 06:37, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sherrie Lea

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

Whatever this article is about it does not appear to be about Sherrie Lea. Almost all of the article is given over to an advert for one Adrian Finkelstein. It looks to me very much like WP:COATRACK and WP:VANISPAMCRUFTISEMENT and thus has no place here. Is Sherrie Lea even notable in her own right? Fiddle Faddle 21:49, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:15, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Upon further investigation, sources indicate some notability for the book (Marilyn Monroe Returns: The Healing of a Soul) but not enough for an article about Sherrie Lea Laird herself.~~Reluctant Keep and remove the unreliably sourced Finkelstein stuff. Searching "Sherrie Lea Laird" turns up enough notability for a stub about the singer, but not much more.~~ - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:08, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question Not my field, but what is it that shows her notability as a singer if none of her recordings are notable? DGG ( talk ) 15:16, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, turns out all of the coverage regarding her focuses on the "Marilyn reincarnation" claims [8], [9], [10]. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:30, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

? For me, were I closing this discussion, I would now read your opinion as neutral at best, tending to deletion. Does that match your own thoughts? Fiddle Faddle 15:33, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Her notability seems borderline at this point with only those 3 sources I found, so I'll wait a bit to see if others dig up more reliable sources that would support a standalone article. If not, there may be a target article her claims fit into, although nothing comes to mind at the moment. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:46, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The book Marilyn Monroe Returns: The Healing of a Soul is notable. Maybe this should be moved there and rewritten as about the book. duffbeerforme (talk) 00:25, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Either delete or restructure as an article on the book. I regard the reincarnation claims as a load of rubbish, but that is my POV. My view tends to be that she is an academic's case study. The study may be notable, but that does not mean that the subject is. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:31, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell this person is not dead and BLP still applies. Can people bear that in mind please before making grand claims against this person in the article. I've seen zero evidence of legitimate academic study, but rather someone making money through a book written for the general public. Self-published and unreliable sources should not be used to make claims about a BLP. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:32, 21 September 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 Ultra Monsters. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:18, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Earthtron

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

This character does not establish notability independent of The Return Of Ultraman through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of overly in-depth plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 20:35, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unimportant article. --One of the Many! (talk) 20:38, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. The character makes a few appearances throughout the series, so a redirect to Ultra Monsters may be in order, but I doubt that anyone is actually going to search for this. Nonetheless, I would support a redirect if consensus goes that way. The article has no sources, and I can find no sources. I suggest deletion. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:06, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per the above poster's partially correct logic filtered through WP:ATD: If there's a valid merge or redirect target, we merge or redirect it, since redirects are cheap and sourced content can always go to a parent article. Jclemens (talk) 04:21, 15 September 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. Speedy deletion WP:G4 — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:54, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pink Friday: The Pinkprint (album)

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

WP:CRYSTAL. Might be a rumor or hoax. Anyway, it's not notable. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 20:23, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:51, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:51, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:31, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adhisaya Ulagam 3D

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

This was sent to the incubator over a year ago and has not been improved at all in that time. The film's official website is gone, it is not listed at IMDB, and I can find no recent mentions of it, so it seems likely it was never completed or released. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:10, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:50, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:50, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:50, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and tag for expansion and additional sourcing back in mainspace. While July 2012 may have been a tad TOO SOON, and while yes, it was ignored while in the incubator, we do not expect any film to remain in the news and we do not usually delete for lack of effort . Point here being, it appears through sources that this was finally released August 10, 2012.[11][12][13][14][15] AND YES it has received review and commentary.[16] WP:NF is met. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 03:18, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm confused. I searched the Times of India as it is usually the best source for this sort of thing and came up empty. I don't know what I did wrong there but obviously your search-fu exceeds my own. Since you have proffered sources that refute the central presumption of my nomination, that this film was never released, I happily withdraw the nomination and will close this AFD. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:29, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:19, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Sarah Kugler

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

Disputed PROD. Reason was "Many people are the First Something. That does not make them notable. No full notability is asserted and verifiec in reliable sources, which may be paper sources, naturally. Without this material the article may not remain here." Fiddle Faddle 19:42, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Her work as a medical missionary is notable and leads to her being referenced in biographical compilations on the topic. Her books also seem to pass notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:43, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Inclusion in the Encyclopedia of American women and religion, Famous American Women, and The Westminster Handbook to Women in American Religious History would suggest that she meets WP:BASIC. Gobōnobō ⁺ ^c 22:12, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as close paraphrase of copyrighted material. Bwrs (talk) 22:59, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She is obviously notable. If the article is kept, I will undertake to do a rewrite, with additional references and no close paraphrasing. --MelanieN (talk) 00:41, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep significant historical figure--but needs rewriting as suggested, and I certaint trust MelanieN for knowing how to do it correctly. DGG ( talk ) 04:20, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks for that vote of confidence, DGG. That plus the encouraging trend at this discussion inspired me to go ahead and do the rewrite. Anyone who hasn't looked at it recently is encouraged to take another look. --MelanieN (talk) 20:45, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per entries in three biographical dictionaries. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 03:17, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Clearly a significant figure in Church History. A paraphrase (or summary) is not a breach of copyright. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:17, 17 September 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) 04:20, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Naking

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

Badly written about ephemeral trend. Geschichte (talk) 19:30, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are not enough sources to establish that this is a trend worth having an article on.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:33, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I initially PRODded this as a neologism, but the author cleared the prod after it expired but before anyone got rid of the article. Still stands to be deleted for the same reason and for the reasons above. Dea db eef 20:32, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Article does not establish notability, and my own searches turn up nothing useful. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:34, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hard to judge if this will be short-lived, as if you search for this hashtag on photo sharing sites you'll finds hoards of recent photos. Nonetheless outside of a few tumblr blogs there's not much to support this as "notable" trend. — MusikAnimal ^talk 21:32, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability. --Dmol (talk) 21:53, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:45, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The topic appears to not meet WP:N; it exists, but not finding wp:sigcov in reliable sources at this time. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:47, 14 September 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 house music. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:23, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vocal house

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

Sourceless, possibly made-up genre. Description easily synonymous to Garage House, Italo House or Diva house and artist examples given are part of already-defined genres ranging from progressive house, funky house to genres that aren't even house at all. F-22 Raptör^{Aces High♠} 19:15, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to house music. Not a made-up genre, I'm able to find hashtags and categories on several music sites, but without any reliable sources, there's not much to this article other than original research. — MusikAnimal ^talk 21:44, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:43, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to House music, where this subgenre is mentioned. While the subject is mentioned in sources such as these, I'm not seeing enough to warrant an independent article. Gong show 06:11, 15 September 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. KTC (talk) 19:20, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cities of History

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

Not yet released game with no indication of notability. Only link is to a Wikia site for the game. I declined the CSD tag applied (not applicable IMO as I can't tell whether this is online based or home based), and my subsequent PROD has been declined by the author. Peridon (talk) 19:12, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NVG and likely WP:CRYSTAL. Not able to find anything to support notability. Wikia source is user-submitted content, and even states the game is in development and "information may not be accurate". — MusikAnimal ^talk 21:53, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 22:42, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:42, 14 September 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 Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them#Film adaptation. —Darkwind (talk) 06:39, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them (film)

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

Fails WP:NFILM. Shooting has yet to start. I was gonna redirect, but I see attempts at that have been reverted. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 19:05, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 19:10, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's been in the press - I can't find the paper for the moment, but I read about it in yesterday's Metro (UK). It'll probably be notable even if the project goes legs up. Peridon (talk) 19:36, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Per above, the Harry Potter franchise is so enormous that I think this will get a lot of coverage, such that even if it doesn't go through there will be enough information for an informative and culturally relevant article. In other words, I think this project, through its connection to the HP universe, defies the notability guideline as it is a topic of social importance and applicability regardless of whether or not a final product comes out of it. That said, I'm no expert in film or the film branch of the wiki, so I'm going to withhold my vote for now. ~ Boomur [talk] 20:36, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
keep We've reached a point, given the enormous scale of the Potter franchise, that this is definitely notable. Either as a film, or as a mass suicide of heartbroken fans. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:12, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources are pretty clear that this is a done deal and the fact that its even being talked about is notable because JKR had said that she was going to be done unless the script and story were good, and of course this is her first screen play attempt.--JOJ ^Hutton 21:14, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect for now to J.K. Rowling without prejudice for later undeletion or recreation. I have absolutely no doubt that due to the screenwriter and public expectations this topic will doubtless be phenomenally notable in a few months. But for now, under policy, guideline, and essay we can write of it at the target without that target being overwhelmed. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 03:27, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think a temporary redirect to the article about the 2001 book by J.K. Rowling, where this is already mentioned, is also a valid consideration. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 02:09, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to "Development of ..." 122.172.157.215 (talk) 19:53, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to "Development of Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them" or something similar. Due to its connection to the Harry Potter series, it seems clear that this is notable, and would probably stay that way even if it was cancelled for some reason. While it was only just announced, it seems likely that it will be in the press a lot more up until the time that it comes out (if nothing else, there will probably be a lot of speculation in the press, as there has been already for Star Wars Episode VII, for example). Alphius (talk) 03:33, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them for now. The "Development of..." articles actually seem to be for films that have been in development for years. And while I'm still sure this will warrant its own article soon enough, I suppose it's fair to say that pretty much all of the coverage right now is only based on the press release, and that, thus, this probably doesn't need its own article yet. Alphius (talk) 14:59, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFF which states "Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles, as budget issues, scripting issues and casting issues can interfere with a project well ahead of its intended filming date". It also goes on to state that "Until the start of principal photography, information on the film might be included in articles about its subject material, if available". As very little is known at this stage, there is no justification for an exception, and a breakout article is not warranted. We don't even know if this will be the title of the film anyway. Also, per WP:CRYSTAL, "Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements and rumors". As this amounts to little more than reports on a press release, then we should be following this policy. --Rob Sinden (talk) 07:51, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good grief - this is one of the most popular franchises right now and has eleventy billion people googling it as a result of the news that the film is coming out. It makes sense for Wikipedia to provide a suitable article. It makes sense not to have speculative articles about things that are only getting minor coverage from fan websites, but this is getting plenty of mainstream news coverage. --B (talk) 19:47, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All of the news coverage is a reaction to a single press release. Anything outside of the press release is speculative. --Rob Sinden (talk) 07:51, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't opine one way or the other on whether or not that is the case, even speculation can be notable. The topic has received overwhelming media coverage. Even if that media coverage is speculation, that doesn't change anything. --B (talk) 15:56, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Overwhelming media coverage" of one single fact - that J.K. Rowling is working on a screenplay based around a book. This is everything we know, which is not enough to warrant a standalone article. --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:01, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Redirect per MQS If there's not currently enough for a stand alone article, this should at least be in JKR's article with a redirect to it. Peridon (talk) 09:12, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, I think a temporary redirect to the article about the 2001 book by J.K. Rowling, where this adaptation is already mentioned, is also a valid consideration. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 02:09, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm starting to think a redirect might be the best choice; Schmidt brings up a good point. So long as the section on the article about the book is expanded somewhat to include some of the relevant information/quotations from this article, I think a redirect might be the best choice — till shooting has begun, at least. Still not voting quite yet, though. ~ Boomur [☎] 02:47, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm okay with a redirect per WP:NFF, but information is currently in three different places, including also Harry Potter (film series)#Future. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:00, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While related, the story-line of the book does predate the timeline of Harry by 70 years. And I think we can speak about it in multiple locations, but as Rowling’s screenwriting debut, and planned as the first movie in a new series, a temporary redirect to either author or the fictional literary work falls in line with how we've done such in the past. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:24, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Fantastic_Beasts_and_Where_to_Find_Them#Film_adaptation, which provides the reader with confirmable information on the film while still fitting our logical guidelines for future films.--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:13, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Policy is clear here, but it's also so very popular, it deserves notice. McKay (talk) 19:58, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Schmidt above, but expand the Film section on the article for the book (and of course, relocate to its own article once more information/confirmation is available). ~ Boomur [☎] 20:25, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - Having an article with purely the title may not bode well at this point, but we can have it renamed "Development of...". DarthBotto_talk•cont 18:17, 23 September 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) 04:25, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Double connecting rod engine

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

Challenged prod.

Unsourced, OR article on one editor's new invention. Good luck with the patent application, but this is very much _not_ what WP is here for. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:34, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:OR describing an invention. The inventor's animated GIF needs to go too. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:40, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless good evidence of widespread coverage appears. As to the device, I can't see it catching on unless some great benefit over simple gearing up is shown. Intriguing, but an unnecessary complication, and I can only see application in low-speed diesels if it does work. There again, they once thought rockets wouldn't work in space... Peridon (talk) 19:48, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing to do with the notability, and someone correct me if I'm wrong, but this could only be used on single cylinder engines without going for a gearwheel or con rod connection(s) to an output shaft. Also, doubling the crank speed won't increase the power output, so I can't see the point for any road engine (where there has to be gearing anyway), and for marine low speed diesels, the normal speed is fine (the medium and high speed engines being geared down to the correct propeller speed). Peridon (talk) 15:55, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Ingenious, but proof of concept and sources lacking. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:54, 14 September 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 return to incubator. —Darkwind (talk) 06:44, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Entity (film)

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

This was at AFD in February and the result was to incubate. Indeed the article incubator contains almost nothing but articles on not-yet-released films. So, I checked the link to the film's official website. Have a look for yourself. And on their official facebook page there are fans asking when this is coming out and getting no reply. And they apprently had a kickstarter campaign that was abruptly cancelled. Add that all up, and it looks pretty likely that this film has been cancelled. If by some chance it gets back on track in the future it can easily be restored, but for the moment this doesn't look like something we should have an article on, incubating or otherwise. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:14, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Send back to the incubator. While I can appreciate the nom returning this to mainspace in order to AFD it under WP:NFF, TOO SOON and lack of improvements while incubated rather than MFD'ing it... perhaps because HERE it will gain more eyes and input... the arguments at the previous AFD are still, if not more applicable. We have a film with an expected 2013 release date whose production has received coverage in reliable sources. If deleted, let it be without prejudice toward undeletion or recreation when it is finally released. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 03:40, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Return to incubator. If the space in there is a problem, I'm willing to userfy this myself. I've actually been keeping an eye on sourcing for this, so the lack of edits hasn't been for lack of eyes on it. If you can confirm that this has been cancelled then I have no true issue with it being completely deleted, but given the amount of coverage it's gotten I'm a little hesitant at outright deleting all of it. A post in the IMDb forums claims that they're delaying the release in order to improve the movie, ([17]) although I know the fallibility of anything on that site. I can't find the facebook page, but that doesn't necessarily mean anything. I'm not exactly skilled at finding the official pages of anything on there since there are so many groups and pages to weed through. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:46, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I messaged one of the film's directors and he directed me to the film's producers via the facebook page, as he said it's pretty much just in their hands now. According to the video on their YT account they're still working on it in some form or fashion, so there are plans to release it at an unspecified date. It's a little frustrating as this was a film I was actually looking forward to seeing, but all we can do now is incubate it or userfy it. Again, I'm willing to userfy it if that's a big concern as far as incubator space goes. (I know that it's frustrating to see a long list of articles that get little to no attention.) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:58, 22 September 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 Dragon deities. —Darkwind (talk) 06:47, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chronepsis

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

This character does not establish notability independent of Dungeons & Dragons through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of overly in-depth plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 17:43, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question You claim that the article is mostly plot details. Where are the plot details you speak of? I see only a general description of the deity. Thanks, --Mark viking (talk) 20:57, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Description of a fictional character is plot detail, because the character and its in-unverse life/appearance/etc is fictional, thus part of the plot. Fictional elements do not exist independently of their fiction.Folken de Fanel (talk) 21:55, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The plot of a work of fiction is not equal to the whole work of fiction itself, it is simply the sequence of events within a work of fiction. See Plot (narrative) and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction)#Plot summaries to gain a better understanding of the concepts of plot and plot summary. In this article, there is no plot summary, there is only character description. My question still stands. --Mark viking (talk) 17:34, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're referring to exposition (what "introduces all of the main characters in the story. It shows how they relate to one another, what their goals and motivations are, and the kind of person they are"), which is also part of the plot.Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction)#Plot summaries also covers "character descriptions or biographies".Folken de Fanel (talk) 18:11, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Dragon deities, where Chronepsis already has an entry. --Mark viking (talk) 20:57, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Dragon deities. This does not seem notable, and I can not find reliable sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:00, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge into List of Dungeons & Dragons deities. BOZ (talk) 07:15, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
transwiki to some fanboy site that loves this kind of trivia. With regard to Wikipedia, there are no independent third party sources, so per [[WP:GNG| the options are delete or if there is suitable content and a suitable target, merge. Merging only primary sourced content generally just transfers the issues from this article to the target article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:51, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into List of Dungeons & Dragons deities. Fails WP:GNG.Folken de Fanel (talk) 21:55, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Arguments above regarding independence of sourcing set the bar too high. Fact is, multiple separate companies have published material detailing this fictional element in multiple separate (although admittedly related) game systems. Jclemens (talk) 01:16, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- While the companies may be "separate" if you ignore the fact that one bought out the other, and the third produces its content under an official licensee agreement, the fact is that you have yet to actually point to the policy that says "D&D articles dont need to meet independent sourcing requirements that all other articles need to." -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:40, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close as redirect/merge to Dragon deities. This article was one of a series of related articles initially merged by User:Drilnoth November 2008; the merge was reverted by an IP-only editor two and a half years later. This suggests tacit agreement that the redirect and merge was acceptable to the majority of editors associated with the wikiproject. In my opinion, a return to the status quo would serve the encyclopedia better than a prolonged and potentially heated debate over each individual deity article. (Note: there are other similar article currently nominated for deletion; I will copy this !vote/recommendation to those affected as well.)Vulcan's Forge (talk) 00:41, 26 September 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) 04:30, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MBS Television Network

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

Not sure if this is a hoax, very badly written or what. Appears to be an article about a fake "online" TV station based on the Sims 2 game. There's a link to a website, but I think all it's there to do is prop up the online fake nature. If someone can show otherwise I'm glad to withdraw the nomination, but as it stands right now it's either a hoax, or a badly written article about a fake online TV station based on the Sims 2 Cybercity Riverview. Either way don't think it meets guidelines for inclusion. Also the fact that this is the only contribution by the user (who appears to logged out for the final updates) and it just makes me wonder. Caffeyw (talk) 17:40, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:V. A free website at Weebly only indicates that a suspected hoax is slightly more elaborate than most. Searches get only the Weebly site and the Wikipedia article. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for being patent nonsense and a hoax. Konveyor Belt ^{yell at me} 18:33, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nonsense, hoax, and "sourced" site is just asking for the copyright hammer to be slammed down ("Local 4"'s logo is WDIV-TV's in blue). Nate • (chatter) 23:04, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; when the website for the supposed "CFRI-DT" actually states on its homepage that it is a "ficitional [sic] television station," (and for that matter, the article itself also says it's a "non-profit fictionalized television station") then obviously it doesn't exist. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:02, 15 September 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. —Darkwind (talk) 06:52, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

National Institute of Fashion Technology Ludhiana

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

Institute that has yet to be setup. Sole announcement is about the Indian Minister of Textiles announcing there would be an institute setup. Fails notability, fails as toosoon, and fails under schools since we don't even know how it will be configured/accredited at this point nor is there a firm date for opening. Caffeyw (talk) 17:17, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 14 September 2013 (UTC) Note: Please consider reading WP:INDAFD which includes some points about WikiProject India AFDs. Those may or may not be applicable here. Tito☸Dutta 18:43, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Another bad faith AFD from this editor. A National Institute does not pass GNG? Is it a joke? I can see lots of articles in Google. Too Soon is a bad argument, it is not a film. Work has already started. --Tito☸Dutta 18:43, 14 September 2013 (UTC) Need some more time study. Most probably it was proposed first in 2007 or 2008, but, I have not got any online source (other than dead link). I am trying to find offline sources, it might be difficult. --Tito☸Dutta 02:34, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First off, you take to applying bad faith anytime you disagree despite Wiki policy to the contrary. Secondly the Institute has not been setup, it's only in the planning stages. TOOSOON can apply to anything, and an institute that has only been discussed is clearly toosoon. All that's been discussed so far is the Minister of Textiles stating there's a need for one in Ludhiana, Punjab. According to the article funding for the Institute has not even been decided. It's NOT the current National Institute of Fashion Technology in New Delhi, but a new campus being setup in a different city and state (which is even mentioned in the article). I suggest before calling bad faith on someone that proper research is done to ensure that like names don't cause confusion. Caffeyw (talk) 22:08, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure why not. I know very well NIFT and its branches. WP:TOOSOON is an essay, not a policy and if you read this essay you'll see it mainly discusses films, actors etc and not a national government sponsored institute like this. I am pinging @MichaelQSchmidt:, who is the writer of the essay to see what he feels. --Tito☸Dutta 22:33, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Some things are obviously notable as soon as they are started or even announced, and a major institute of this sort is one of them. It's similar to a government decision to construct a new province: it would be notable at the first proposal. I do not , however, call this a bad faith nomination. The nom seems to be perfectly sincere in making his principal WP activity listing articles for deletion. He seems to have only a 50% success rate when judged by what the community does, but that could merely indicate a desire to learn by experience instead of first seeing what our practices actually are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 22:48, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems we're missing the purpose of the AfD and attacking the user instead. Yes I had problems at first, heck I even took part of a month off to ensure I fully understood policy. I started posting again today, and so far this is the only article where I've been told it's an outright bad faith. All others have been taken as reasonable AfDs, with the clear majority supported outright. I'm sorry that I offended you by arguing against the closure of an AfD less then 24 hours after it opened, but it's clear now that if it involves India that you want it to stay. I've provided a very concise and well thought out reason for this AfD, and even if TOOSOON is just an essay it's used by most on AfD to show that something is premature in having it's own page. You've not argued one bit that this school exists, that there's firm plans for it, or that there's even an opening date, just it was announced as needed thus it should have an article. Your sole argument seems to be that you dislike the nominator and that since it involves India it should stay. Hopefully an admin can review this. To prevent further arguing I'm not posting on this AfD further. Talkpage is best. Caffeyw (talk) 23:03, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Weak keep per analysis by DGG and sources provided by User:Titodutta... orat the very least, Redirect for a few weeks and temporarily only to National Institute of Fashion Technology until this announced branch is set up and running, as it as this plan by the Government of India already meets WP:GNG. I openly and herein ask the nom if this solution is suitable, and if he would step back from any drama to (for now) openly support a keep per WP:NRVE or a temporary redirection. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 00:55, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am the one who created this article. Since it has been announced by Minister of Textiles, officially, and has been published on the official Mouthpiece of Government of India, there leaves very little doubt that the institute wont be setup. The whole process of setting up a new institute takes time and it may take 18-20 months before the Admission begins or the website of Institute goes live. I request you not to hurry it for deletion as the pace of Indian Bureaucracy is slow and very little progress is actually revealed to media. Quartzd (talk) 02:45, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So if say the Gov. of California announces tomorrow that a University of CA campus should be opened in Arcadia we should go ahead and open a page called University of CA at Arcadia? Even though there's no funding, there's no promise it will actually be built, no promise that the legislature will approve of the plan? All we have at this time is a Minister's statement that a campus should be opened. I can understand a note on the UC main page, and in this case there is a note on the main National Institute of Technology page, but it's way too premature to have a National Institute of Technology Ludhiana page. Any number of things can happen between now and an actual campus opening, if one even ever does. Caffeyw (talk) 06:34, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we do have articles on some projects that don't exist yet, i.e. the Hyperloop (which may very well never be built). Mark Arsten (talk) 07:07, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And your imaginary "what if" aside, please do not disregard the primary notability guideline nor forget that policy allows forward looking articles. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 07:29, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's true, however there's more reliable sourced information about it, and it's a concept. Here all we have is a state of need, nothing more, no source to indicate more information, no source to validate a school will be built. Nothing other then a Ministers desire. This fails even the SCHOOLS exception to GNG. Basically the keep votes are arguing that because a Minister stated they want a school we should just take it on blind faith that the school will be built. There's no money, no legislative approval, no building plans, no ___location picked, nothing. All it is currently is a stated desire of a Minister of Textiles. Caffeyw (talk) 07:35, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference between campus of any University and autonomous Institutes like NIFT. However there are several pages for regional NIFTs like National Institute of Fashion Technology Patna and National Institute of Fashion Technology Shillong. There are examples in cases of Universities also, see BITS Pilani Goa Campus BITS Pilani Hyderabad Campus and BITS Pilani, Dubai Campus. Also, this is not a Minister's desire, but an announcement. Quartzd (talk) 07:41, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Big difference is those Institute's are open, they ARE schools. Also an announcement that an area should get an Institute is a desire, it doesn't become more then that until it's actually approved. Caffeyw (talk) 07:45, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's so premature that the NFIT has not even had a chance to weigh in on if they want, much less will build a campus in this city. I agree it doesn't have to wait till it opens, but we need to at least know it's more then an announced want before an article can be created. Caffeyw (talk) 17:13, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Caffeyw, please try to understand that policy allows forward-looking articles even on ideas or concepts as long as properly sourced. We encourage articles about sourcable topics, without demanding that all sourcable topics be tangibles. They key for inclusion is not "I can see it and so it exists". real or not, the key for inclusion, real or not, is that "the topic has been written about in multiple reliable sources outside of Wikipedia" (in examples:, we have 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and there are many more "concepts" written of here)... being "real" or "being funded" is not the inclusion criteria. An early article that grows over time and through editorial effort is how we build an encyclopedia. See WP:WIP, and WP:PERFECT. What you keep ignoring is that the "topic" of the planned National Institute of Fashion Technology in the area of Ludhiana HAS been spoken of in multiple reliable sources. As multiple sources speak toward India's plans for NIFTs to challenge China in the field of fashion design and manufacture, and in light of the other such institutions they have already built, it is hubris to declare it non-notable as either a topic or a concept. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 17:29, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I fully understand forward looking ideas can have articles if there's wide spread reliable discussion about them. As I said above the school does not have to open for an article to be created. However simply having a Minister of Textile state that he wishes a campus to open in a city is not wide spread discussion of creating a campus. All we have at this point is one persons desire to open a campus in this city. We don't have any discussion from the actual school that would open a new campus in this city, the city, the legislature, anyone else. There's nothing that can be said other then Minister of Textiles wants NFIT campus in city. Caffeyw (talk) 18:19, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need to revisit the references which clearly state that the Institute would be started shortly and not 'I want an Institute' type. The article also talks about Land Allotment for the project. Here is the first paragraph from the same "Ludhiana will be shortly having a National Institute of Fashion Technology (NIFT). This was announced by the Union Minister of Textiles K.S Rao at the interaction with the representatives of Ludhiana Integrated Textile Park and Knitwear Club in the presence of Manish Tewari, Union Minister for Information and Broadcasting here today".Quartzd (talk) 01:54, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - FYI, there appears to be a rather ham-handed and ineffective (so far) attempt at canvassing going on in relation to this subject here. While I doubt that it will have an effect on the outcome here at AfD (for which I have no opinion), you should probably all know about it in any event. Guy1890 (talk) 23:38, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Going to an admin about a complaint is an attempt at vote getting? If you notice he didn't even support this vote. All you've done here is make an argument that you are suggesting people not be able to bring issues to an admin. I wrote a complaint, I never asked him to vote, to take a side, etc. Read before you make baseless complaints. Caffeyw (talk) 15:21, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is not "inappropriate canvassing". And look at the editor he approached — it's Mark Arsten, a trusted admin. He was just trying to get help. --Tito☸Dutta 15:57, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I really don't see any need for a really short page made of rumors rather than a redirect to National Institute of Fashion Technology. --Vituzzu (talk) 00:01, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect to National Institute of Fashion Technology. There's no coverage beyond a ministerial announcement, which by itself is not a guarantee that an institute will be set up, especially when made to a local trade group gathering. "Soon" is also a very variable term. Until such time that land allocation and the BoG are set up under the aegis of the statutory body (in this case NIFT) an institute is not a guarantee. We don't need to wait for admissions to open up, but we at least need to know that an institute is in the works and isn't just a promise. —SpacemanSpiff 19:51, 17 September 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) 04:30, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Scalar Analysis (Finance)

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

Fails WP:GNG. Bbb23 (talk) 17:06, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Definitely fails general notability. NoyPiOka (talk) 10:59, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The user who created this is currently blocked, but here is their reply to the notification of this discussion:

Hello, my name is Ramoncito Ulep. I am the individual who created the topic "Scalar Analysis (Finance)". I created it because it is a publication I made. Albeit self-published, I was assuming that because Wikipedia has accepted my notable contributions to the music industry in the Philippines and included my own name as a Wikipedia topic, the organization would also recognize my published work citing Wikipedia itself as a "reliable source" of reference.

Not good. Although I usually prefer to see actual words used in deletion discussions instead of just links I have to agree with the nomination and will add WP:VSCA as well. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:33, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per WP:NOR and WP:GNG. Given the note above, probably the same editor's other contributions need to be checked as well. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:25, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - definitely OR, and appears to be self-promotion/COI as well. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:51, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:31, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Phylogenetic niche conservatism

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

Term pulled directly from the paper that is used as reference. Essay/OR would seem to apply to what the poster is using for reference. Seems to be a basic reprint of the main point of the referenced essay. Everything stated in the article is pulled from the one reference and reworded just enough to not be an outright copyright violation. Caffeyw (talk) 16:10, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - article needs serious work, but the term is used in many papers as a search immediately reveals. More refs are needed, and much improved discussion, but those are jobs for editing, not for deletion. See e.g. OU, RSPB, Nature. There are hundreds more. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:44, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "Phylogenetic niche conservatism" gets over a thousand hits on Google Scholar and the first page of hits shows multiple papers where this topic is the main subject of the paper. More reliable references appear in GBooks. This is a clearly notable topic, as the nominator would have seen if they had followed WP:BEFORE. The article does need work, but none of the problems are insurmountable, per WP:SURMOUNTABLE. A notable topic and and surmountable problems suggests keeping the article. --Mark viking (talk) 20:34, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there is a point in WP:BEFORE, which is to search for references before nominating, to avoid errors of this sort. A nom. is currently permitted to ignore searching, and make the inevitable errors, but it wastes the time of others. As I have been saying for years, basic checking should be obligatory. DGG ( talk ) 00:55, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Many reliable sources identified above. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 21:14, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think I detect a SNOWflake here ... if someone could do the honours. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:58, 16 September 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. I believe in all my tenure as an AfD closing admin so far this is the one which best illustrates what no consensus is about. One can try in a couple of years to see whether the consensus has been shifted.Ymblanter (talk) 07:56, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Newcastle United F.C. 0–1 Crystal Palace F.C. (1907)

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

PROD contested after 9 days; original rationale remains valid. The claim that this is "one of the greatest shocks of all time in the history of the FA Cup" is not supported by reliable sources, and the match has not been the subject of significant coverage. It is just another match - one of many a season - where a big club is defeated by a smaller club, causing minor ripples in the footballing world - nothing more, and nothing to make this one stand out. Giant Snowman 14:03, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:04, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

keep - In a season where they would win the league, were second in the league at the time of the match and were cup finalists the previous season. I would say Newcastle losing to the non-league crystal palace at home in the first round of the cup makes this match notable. Also the passage of over 100 years with this match being written about in reliable sources while few other 'giant killings' still are. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 14:21, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how notability works on Wikipedia. Where is the "significant coverage in reliable sources"? Giant Snowman 14:49, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:26, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:26, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:26, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's nice to see a football article that's actually about a game of football rather than being yet another bio-stub or tedious list of stats and scorelines. The article already has plenty of sources; here's another: Football's Giant Killers: 50 Great Cup Upsets. Warden (talk) 16:51, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sure, there's a minimal amount of coverage; but there's little notable about this match. We do not have articles on other "big upsets", and nor should we. It's not even a cup final match - just a run-of-the-mill early round fixture that had an unexpected result. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:01, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am hampered by not being able to read the newspaper reports of the period but (anyway, and particularly after looking at the article creator's contribution record) I am willing to accept that the coverage was substantial. In itself this could be regarded as merely routine reporting but I see the match is still being written about by reliable sources over a hundred years later. To me that establishes notability in the WP:GNG sense. I think it a defect that WP:Notability (sports) has little historical perspective (although WP:SPORTSEVENT does seem to be met) and that WP:NFOOTY restricts itself to personalities. However, those are problems with the specific guidelines and not with the article itself. Thincat (talk) 11:15, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete IMO, cup shocks fall under WP:ROUTINE. Plus some of the stuff in the introduction ("the equivalent of the current Premier League") is cringeworthy. Number 5 7 12:20, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet criteria from WP:EVENT guideline; routine sports reporting jni (talk) 07:50, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, it does meet those criteria; especially WP:PERSISTENCE. Warden (talk) 13:09, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't see any indication that this is a particularly notable match. The article itself states that it is the equivalent of a Division 1 team beating a Premier League team. This is not really a particularly rare occurrance. Additionally, most of the sources explaioning how this is a shock are of dubious reliability. Nine references seem to come from a random personal website. Of the remaining recent sources, presumably those cited as showing WP:PERSISTENCE, a significant number of them are from a book called We All Follow The Palace, which sounds like a book written by and for fans, so not a reliable source or from a Crystal Palace matchday programme. I can't see anything to indicate that this match has received significant coverage a "great FA Cup shock" in any truly independant sources. Fenix down (talk) 13:30, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Obviously, as creator. It meets the GNG, it was discussed widely in newspapers at the time and was the first great cup upset in the history of the FA Cup. Any clunky text is based on me copying the format of the article Hereford United 2–1 Newcastle United, where you can clearly find the text "the equivalent of the current Premier League." I would suggest that most of the participants in this debate are suffering from something akin to WP:RECENTISM, in that only recent events seem to them to be worthy of inclusion. I'd also note that We All Follow The Palace is more than a book written by and for fans; the history of the club was written by Tony Matthews who has authored numerous books on Football Club History. It's also somewhat disingenuous to suggest the book is written for the fans, given that most books, indeed most things in general, are bought by fans of the book itself. Attempting to cast aspersions on something because people buy it seems an odd argument to make. A book about a football club will inevitably be bought by fans of that club. The article has been amended to suggest it is the equivalent of a League One side, not a Division One side as Division One is the second division and the article was at one point in time suggesting the third division. In actuality, what happened is a club that had been formed the previous season and were playing non-league football beat the champions of England. It is hard to think of something equivalent in this day and age happening, a club formed in 2011 beating Manchester United the first round of the cup? The stuff of legends! I would in summary point out that Wikipedia:Notability is not superseded by the local, specific, consensus in WP:EVENT. There are not two hurdles to be jumped here, the notability guidance is quite clear on this: A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets the general notability guideline below. Nobody has found an issue with the GNG, the article has sources in the press of the day and I suspect there are others in more recent papers but I do not as yet have access to the correct libraries nor the time to find them. I presume they exist and the presumption is that the match is of note. Best regards Hiding T 16:00, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't think it really is a strange argument to suggest that a book specifically written to be marketed at fans (the title "We all Follow Palace" is a bit of a giveaway) would be inherently unreliable. Of course events like this are going to be talked up, because the people to whom the book is marketed have an inherent desire to read about such events. Your comment about a two year old team beating Man U is a bit disengenuous as well as Newcastle were barely 15 years old at the time! Your comment that nobody has found issue with GNG is also disengenuous. Everybody who says delete has by definition! Fenix down (talk) 17:19, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Almost all books are marketed at people who're interested in the subject, whether it's a book about a sports team, sportsperson, writer, musician, politician, or religious topic. Wikipedia:RS#Biased or opinionated sources makes it clear that a reliable source does not have to be unbiased. If you have specific concerns that the author does not meet WP:RS, explain them. --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:15, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:This is indeed an important match where a Premier League club was defeated by a non league club.Also there are plenty of references.This type of articles are kept.Ex Borussia Mönchengladbach 12–0 Borussia Dortmund RRD13 (talk) 13:08, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Firstly you can't really use the Premier v non-league analogy for matches played at the time there was not a minimum of four divisions, nor anywhere near the number of clubs that exist now. Secondly, you can't really compare a FA cup match with the all-time record victory in the Bundesliga. Fenix down (talk) 13:18, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Coverage well beyond GNG. What's "disengenuous" and "cringeworthy" – if anything – is members of Wikiproject Football following their three-line whip and rigging the discussion by voting en bloc as usual. All but one of the delete votes are from WP:FOOTBALL which as a project lacks any objectivity and is increasingly taking on the aspect of a circle jerk. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 12:47, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Upsets are, by definition, unexpected, but that doesn't mean they aren't routine. I'm sure this is of great interest to Crystal Palace fans, but it's overall significance hasn't been demonstrated. There's a high bar to meet for individual football matches, and this doesn't pass it. --BDD (talk) 16:48, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well-written, adequately sourced and an interesting article. If the nominator has a problem with one specific line in it, he could always contribute by improving the article rather than deleting it. Hmlarson (talk) 18:44, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it's well written and referenced, but that's not a good reason to keep, nor is the fact that it may be interesting. --BDD (talk) 19:00, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, guess I forgot to include reference to the WP:GNG guideline in my first sentence. My mistake - but thanks to the links to that essay. Hmlarson (talk)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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~~ merge to Ponce de Leon Avenue. —Darkwind (talk) 06:56, 27 September 2013 (UTC) Edit: A merger was performed before the AfD was closed, but that fact was not mentioned after discussion, making the de facto outcome merge instead of delete. This AfD did not address the suitability of the content to be included in a broader article, and I have restored the article history for licensing compliance. —Darkwind (talk) 23:23, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kroger (Ponce de Leon Ave.)

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

Previously deleted via AfD under the name Murder Kroger first part of this year. CSD declined since the article was rewritten incorporating references to the murder and death that occurred. However none of the material is new. All was available last time. While I'm sure some locals call it Murder Kroger, it just doesn't seem to rise to the level of notability to justify a stand alone article on the store. Caffeyw (talk) 14:03, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The previous deletion was for a WP:NEO. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder Kroger. To quote one of the delete votes there: "If there were reputable local mainstream sources (AJC, TV/radio station websites, newspaper archives, etc.), even just a few of them, that would be enough in my opinion. As Ten Pound Hammer has pointed out, there are not enough credible sources to establish this article." Now we have 10 citations to The Atlanta Journal-Constitution (AJC). Per WP:CHAIN, which doesn't normally encourage franchise articles, we have sufficient detailed coverage to establish a coherent article about the store. The "nickname" just makes the proposed DYK hook fun. Biosthmors (talk) 14:45, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:21, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:21, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:21, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet notability requirements. Ridiculous.97.85.208.225 (talk) 16:50, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:Places of local interest says: "It may be considered that if enough attributable information exists about the subject to write a full and comprehensive article about it, it may make sense for the subject to have its own article. If some source material is available, but is insufficient for a comprehensive article, it is better to mention the subject under the article for its parent locality." In this case, the parent locality is clearly Ponce de Leon Avenue. So is Wikipedia served better by having a separate article for this store, or should we merge the content into the article about the street? I think a separate article makes more sense. But in either of these cases, keep or merge, there's no need for an AfD discussion. Biosthmors (talk) 15:53, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see no significant coverage of this individual Kroger store that would justify an article about it. Local news outlets mention grocery store openings and locations where crimes get committed. Kroger has thousands of stores and all are mentioned occasionally in local papers. The Bank of America branch I go to has been robbed three times in ten years. Is that branch notable? Not in my book. There was a terrible gang shootout 20 years ago at a McDonald's I pass by regularly. Not notable. Much of the content is about competitors in the neighborhood, not this store. And since when do we link to a video of a song by a non-notable band as a reference? I just don't get it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:11, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Cullen328, the article doesn't establish notability based upon the crime. Primary sources are allowed if used with care, which has been done. You're saying the sourced content shouldn't even be merged to the parent article? Biosthmors (talk) ^{please add [[User:Biosthmors]] to your signed reply} 17:36, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Biosthmors, I see nothing worth merging. You could say "There is a Kroger store at intersection X" in the article about the street. It is nothing more than another one of hundreds of thousands of individual supermarkets all over the world. The chain is clearly notable. In my view, an individual store would need to have much more in-depth coverage beyond routine store opening news, renovation rumors and passing mentions in the local crime blotter in order to justify inclusion in this encyclopedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:04, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cullen328, interesting. Am I missing something fundamental about Wikipedia? Bear with me a minute, if you will. Because I have in my mind a "featured" version of the Ponce de Leon Avenue article. And imagine we had featured and longer Clermont Lounge, Ponce City Market, and Ford Motor Company Assembly Plant (Atlanta), articles. They're all right there along Ponce. I imagine each establishment along the road would get a section at the street article, and would be adopted WP:SS there, with a {{Main article}} link. What's wrong with that vision? Biosthmors (talk) ^{please add [[User:Biosthmors]] to your signed reply} 18:13, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, what's the determining characteristic of buildings that deserve coverage at the street article? Are chain establishments not worth discussing, simply because they're chains? Biosthmors (talk) ^{please add [[User:Biosthmors]] to your signed reply} 18:21, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing wrong with your overall vision, Biosthmors, with regards to the street article, and the three other places you mentioned, all of which appear notable to me, though the strip club article needs work. Each notable establishment could have a brief section. However, you have not convinced me that this individual Kroger is notable. It could be mentioned in the street article, I suppose, but does not deserve its own article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:29, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Cullen328 for the discussion. Well, you may already understand my position well, but just to be clear for everyone: I'm arguing that many stand-alone chain stores may be notable. The determining threshold for notability is just a practical matter. Can one find enough details in independent sources to actually craft a coherent stand-alone article? I think I've done that. And I think that is the fundamental intent behind WP:CHAIN. Biosthmors (talk) ^{please add [[User:Biosthmors]] to your signed reply} 19:08, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument doesn't seem to be based on the actual wording of the notability guideline WP:CHAIN, but rather on what you might wish it to be. Here's the actual wording:

"Many companies have chains of local stores or franchises that are individually pretty much interchangeable—for instance, a local McDonald's. Since there is generally very little to say about individual stores or franchises that is not true for the chain in general, Wikipedia should not have articles on such individual stores. In rare cases, an individual ___location will have architectural peculiarities that makes it notable, such as the Shell Service Station (Winston-Salem, North Carolina) or the McDonald's (Will Rogers Turnpike); however, a series of articles on every single Wal-Mart in China would not be informative. An exception can be made if a major event occurred at a local store; however, this would most likely be created under an article name that describes the event, not the ___location (see San Ysidro McDonald's massacre for an example)."

All we've got in this case is a few non-notable crimes over 22 years, routine services, competitors, a false renovation rumor, mention of a bunch of competitors, and a couple of shout-outs of a nickname. Where's the architectural or historical significance due to a major event? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:21, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks, and I'm arguing that what's there amounts to much more than the the general case where there is "very little to say". And don't forget the the $1.5 million dollar investment, the song, and the loans that the source implies catalyzed the formation of the store in the 1980s. It adds up, in my opinion. =) I don't think WP:CHAIN offers an exhaustive list of examples that can establish notability. Biosthmors (talk) ^{please add [[User:Biosthmors]] to your signed reply} 19:38, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A business in a major metropolitan area has a lot of crime? You don't say. --BDD (talk) 17:03, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nothing of substance there; not even a BLP1E level of substance. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:07, 16 September 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-deletion (A7). (Non-admin closure) AllyD (talk) 17:34, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Waleed Dilawar Chughtai

AfDs for this article:

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

Not Notable. Shashwat986 → talk 13:59, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Because of persistent vandalistic removal of the AfD and CSD tags, as well as blanking of the AfD articles, there are now two AfDs running for this article. Best to stay with the original one for views. AllyD (talk) 16:28, 14 September 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) 04:33, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pareiasauromorpha

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

More taxonomic vandalism from a user with a history of it. He's simply making up new taxonomies and editing WP to fit his views. HCA (talk) 13:38, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:45, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This one has been suggested by one author, L A Tsuji, in a 2012 paper and in two earlier works published in German, but it clearly has not taken hold (yet) and is in effect a non-notable neologism. Agricolae (talk) 21:30, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable sources. jni (talk) 07:47, 16 September 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) 04:33, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nycteroleteria

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

Completely non-existent taxon, no references in google scholar to it. User has a history of simply "making up" new taxonomies and posting them to WP HCA (talk) 13:36, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:44, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to break it up into Tokosauridae and Nycteroleteria before it gets deleted. If possible stall the deletion until I'm done. Once I'm done I agree to have it deleted. Iainstein (talk) 14:11, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I have split off Nycteroleteridae and Tokosauridae is monotypical so there is nothing left to be changed. Iainstein (talk) 14:54, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No sources. Lots of disruptive taxon editing by original author suggest this could be a hoax. jni (talk) 07:48, 16 September 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-deletion (A7). (Non-admin closure) AllyD (talk) 17:32, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Waleed Dilawar Chughtai

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

Not Notable. Shashwat986 → talk 13:32, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agreed. A kid passed an online IT course. Impressive? Maybe (maybe not). Notable? No. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:39, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:43, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:43, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable. Kolbasz (talk) 14:48, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Because of persistent vandalistic removal of AfD and CSD tags, as well as blanking of the AfD articles, there are now two AfDs running for this article. Best to stay with this one as the original for views. AllyD (talk) 16:29, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, probably CSD A7 A schoolchild having a certificate is not a basis for encyclopaedic notability. AllyD (talk) 16:31, 14 September 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. —Darkwind (talk) 06:57, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dyke tyke

AfDs for this article:

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

WP: DICTIONARY, and entirety of article already located with sources at article Fag hag. Holdek (talk) 13:29, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:35, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:35, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary. We do not have articles that merely define terms, which this one is.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:29, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Editors interested in this article should also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Girlfag and guydyke. "Dyke tyke" and "guydyke" appear to be synonyms. The two sources cited here might be useful somewhere. I'm not going to suggest merging this article into that one, though, because it's not clear what will happen to that article. Cnilep (talk) 22:08, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a neologism more suitable to Wiktionary. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:31, 15 September 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. KTC (talk) 01:03, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Slum (film)

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

Non-notable upcoming film, cannot find evidence this film even exists BOVINEBOY2008 13:06, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:34, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:34, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable and failing WP:NFILM. Even if it wasn't a hoax. "a bunch of newcomers"? Really, now? Beerest355 Talk 13:47, 14 September 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 Tree of life (biology). —Darkwind (talk) 06:58, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tree of life (phylogenetics)

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

Can't figure out what this is even. CSD was declined with comment that it's far from not making sense. It seems to have something to do with the Tree of Life Web Project, but what I can't figure out. Is it an example, if so why just this one type, and why not on the page about the Tree of Life Web Project. Bottom line right now there's nothing useable as far as I can tell Caffeyw (talk) 12:55, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:33, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or possibly Redirect to Tree of life (biology) While the Tree of life is a highly notable concept, we already have much better articles on this topic, in the form of Tree of life (biology) or Phylogenetic tree. I recommend deletion, but if others think Tree of life (phylogenetics) could be a reasonable search term, redirect is fine, too. --Mark viking (talk) 20:46, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or Delete as per Mark viking. It clearly duplicates the concept of Tree of life (biology) without providing any novel content. I guess it is possible someone might search for the term. Agricolae (talk) 21:25, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/merge' as suggested. That it duplicates other articles is a reason for deletion, that it does not make sense shows if anything a failure to read those other articles. DGG ( talk ) 23:24, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect (or merge), seems like a valid search term, see e.g. book titles likes The Tree of Life: A Phylogenetic Classification Christian75 (talk) 10:22, 22 September 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. ~~Insufficient notability.~~ That was poorly phrased, I meant "the sources cited thus far are insufficient to establish notability". —Darkwind (talk) 07:00, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MacKenzie McHale

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

While the Newsroom is a notable show, starting character pages seems a little premature. The show has been on for two seasons, a total of 20 episodes or so. The cultural impact is not that of say Star Trek or the Sopranos. PRODded but rejected by article creator. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:31, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:42, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:42, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:42, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to main article. NN fictional character. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 12:26, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As the female lead on a multi-seasonshow, the character is more notable than the nominator indicates, and the article needs time to be developed. What shouldn't be happening is that it shouldn't be used to further the Oxford/Cambridge Union joke from the last episode. --Drmargi (talk) 15:14, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited. A notable show does not equal a notable character. If no sources exist, then the character is not notable. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 16:10, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All well and good, but not what I said. --Drmargi (talk) 07:40, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the main article. It can always be split out should it gain the necessary references to establish its notability. TTN (talk) 20:19, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The character is far more notable than the nominator believes and as for it being "too soon" for character articles, that is not actually true. See Rome (TV series) and the character page Atia of the Julii which has as many references and is 8 years old. That series began in the summer of 2005 and the Atia article begun in November of 2005. That series only lasted two seasons and both are HBO productions and aired in similar times slots (Rome on Sunday nights at 9:00pm and The Newsroom at 10:00pm on Sunday nights).

The two main characters should have articles for this series. I also believe that it is possible that a handful of the other main characters can be reliably sourced and also pass general notability guidelines.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:40, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the main article. As the article stands right now (50 words), it serves no purpose. There's no more information that isn't already in the main article. Unless someone is going to expand with in-depth character/plot summary, casting, production, and reception information, it should be redirected. Using those Rome character articles isn't really a good example, given that Atia of the Julii article is all plot and is tagged with every clean-up tag imaginable. Drovethrughosts (talk) 14:43, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As an example of a character article created within months of the series premier, it is a perfect example. As a good article...it is a terrible example. But I am not saying the Atia article is good. And yes, I will be expanding this article but will wait to see what happens with the deletion discussion. Thanks for contributing.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:29, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with Mark Miller and Drmargi on this - this and several of the other main characters are notable enough for more in-depth pieces than the main article can support - common practice throughout the encyclopedia. This is a classic stub - I don't know if there was a reason for not having the stub tag, but I would recommend adding it, as well as creating articles/stubs for other main characters. Articles like this always start small, and they expand into fuller pieces as we go. Pointless to delete it only to recreate it a little later - give it some time. Tvoz/talk 23:45, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't really common practice. Non-notable fictional characters which solely consist of plot are routinely deleted. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 00:09, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First, as it has been said, this is not a "Non notable" character. Whatever you definition of notable may be at least this character passes criteria set by Wikipedia. Jeff Daniels just won an Emmy tonight for his portrayal of 'Will" McAvoy. This character's love interest. I actually see notability of this character and others rising even more than they already are.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:55, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CRYSTAL. Daniels winning an Emmy for playing a character may be indicative of notability for that character, but not for that character's unrelated love interest. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 22:49, 24 September 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. —Darkwind (talk) 07:03, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Airplane Repo

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

Non-notable TV show. While I watch the show it's hard to claim notability about it. All references listed are TV listings or info from the parent company Discovery about the show. Most other hits are viewers questioning if the show is real or giving their opinions. No articles about the show itself, no major reviews, etc. Caffeyw (talk) 11:23, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:41, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:41, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment an IP appears to be making a lot of changes to this article, including adding cast "Bios" which are pulled straight from http://dsc.discovery.com/tv-shows/airplane-repo/bios , a section I've tagged as a possible WP:COPYVIO violation. Boogerpatrol (talk) 21:37, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per WP:TVSHOW once the article's copyright issues are addressed.Boogerpatrol (talk) 21:46, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:TVSHOWDeathlibrarian (talk) 11:01, 25 September 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.

Ruth Fine

The result was Speedy keep. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 15:42, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Disputed PROD. Reason was "Fails WP:ACADEMIC" Fiddle Faddle 11:15, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:40, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:41, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:41, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Suggest procedural close as no rationale has been advanced. The article does not fails WP:ACADEMIC because the subject is holder of a named chair. The nominator needs to explain how he got to the conclusion that the article "Fails WP:ACADEMIC" within 5 minutes of article creation. SL 7968 05:14, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some new links and some of the awards Prof. Fine received over the years. I think they show the notability of Ruth Fine in the field of Latinamerican literature research, and in Cervantes' work in particular. She has a worldwide reputation. Yinonk (talk) 13:03, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep on procedural grounds (no rationale); the nomination cannot even be considered to be a shorthand for a developed rationale since holder of a named chair is specifically mentioned as a reason for keeping per WP:ACADEMIC. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 17:34, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hebrew University of Jerusalem is an institution of a level that holding a named chair there is ground for notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:10, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:PROF#C5. The presidency of the Israeli Association of Hispanists also makes criterion #C6 plausible but it may not be a major academic society as considered by that criterion. Google scholar doesn't find much but I wouldn't have expected it to for this area. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:11, 15 September 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 both. No prejudice against re-creation with appropriate sources to establish notability. —Darkwind (talk) 07:05, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Netop Remote Control

AfDs for this article:

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

This software's article is sourced only to the developer's website, a couple of reposted press releases, a review from the kind of site that indiscriminately reviews any and all software, and a Analyst's report that the developer sponsored. I don't see the multiple reliable sources that are needed to show notability here, so I think this fails the general notability guideline and should be deleted. I am also nominating the article on the developer for all the same reasons:

MrOllie (talk) 10:50, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:39, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:39, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kantonus said they would "rebuild" the article at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion/Archive 100#Netop Remote Control but if they do not with a few weeks may as well delete this again. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:28, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment that the template on the Netop article points to a deletion discussion from 2008, not this one. And the hatnote on Netop Remote Control is not accurate about the redirect. Clearly each of the two does not show notability now. Anyone who thinks this has anything to do with solutions for example has not looked very far into what this company does vs. what that article is about, or is attempting to mislead. So I would lean delete unless some independent sources can be produced. Would be odd if it is not covered even in a Danish or other language source for example. The company claims to be on some stock exchange, but at least when I tried to look it up could not find it. Ah, note this news - company has del-listed itself because of possible acquisition by Consolidated Holding A/S? If this kind of thing was ever picked up by the press perhaps a decent article could be put together. W Nowicki (talk) 17:55, 16 September 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. KTC (talk) 19:11, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

S. R. H. James

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

Non-notable. Referenced directly to the subjects website. He's part author of a series of Latin textbooks. Also apparently created a book on London Film locations. None of which appear to be particularly notable. Caffeyw (talk) 10:48, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:38, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:38, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Though one can become notable writing widely used textbooks, there is no indication this his book is one of them, nor does the other book appear to be notable. DGG ( talk ) 23:32, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Concur with nominator's analysis. Being a schoolteacher who writes textbooks does not confer notability. Finnegas (talk) 17:24, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- With Latin as a subject that is less and less taught, I find it hard to accept that the authro of a new text book on it is notable for that. This artticle reads like a fan-article by one of his pupils. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:46, 17 September 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 and salt. —Darkwind (talk) 07:09, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

QualityWings

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

Long story short, I came across this as a speedy for WP:G11. I noticed that it was a pretty rough version of an article by a newer user, so I moved it to their userspace with a note about reliable sourcing. The page was moved back almost instantly by the editor, so I'm bringing it here for a proper AfD. I was going to speedy it as A7, but the assertion that it is "a leader in add-on development for Microsoft Flight Simulator" makes it maybe squeak by a speedy deletion. The prose here is kind of buzzy, but I don't think that the editor was deliberately trying to create a promotional page. The problem here is that there just isn't coverage out there that would assert that this company is ultimately notable enough to merit an article or even a true mention on the MFS page. I can find some press releases and various links that can't be used as reliable sources to show notability, but not much else. I thought that it might be fairer to take this to a proper AfD than to speedy it as promotion for the above reasons, as well as to give others a chance to try to find sources. I feel a little bad as this is the user's first article, but it just doesn't pass notability guidelines and I tried to give them another option. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:45, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The original editor has mentioned on the talk page that they would potentially keep re-adding this to the mainspace. I would recommend a salting of this article after it is deleted. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:21, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:37, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:37, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So you will delete this page, but refuse to delete another even though I found this "Precision Manuals Development Group (abbr. PMDG) is a commercial add-on aircraft developer for the Microsoft Flight Simulator series. The company is often noted as one of the leaders in the add-on and development community of Microsoft Flight Simulator, regarding highly detailed simulated aircraft that closely resemble their real world counterparts.[1]" So this crap. If it gets deleted, I'm just going to keep posting, because frankly, this is a much more interesting page then say, wikipedia or wikileaks. --Bookbloxer (talk) 12:50, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see coverage in reliable sources, and the way WP works, posts on forums aren't enough to identify something as "leading" or significant. Bookbloxer, I hope your "I'm just going to keep posting" is not a statement of intent to edit disruptively. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:06, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well in this case, i'll be nominating the PMDG page of a deletion, because that is excatly the same. --Bookbloxer (talk) 01:13, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To suit both partys, what about a merge with the PMDG page to make a "Flight Simulation Add-On Developers" page? ideas Bookbloxer (talk) 03:22, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that you would still have to show notability to some extent for both developers. If you want to create a page for the concept of add-on developers that specialize in flight simulation, you would have to show that this specific niche of AOD have received coverage in reliable sources. We sometimes contain lists within articles of these types, but in most cases the list is comprised of companies/people/things that pass notability guidelines and already have an article. The reason behind that is because otherwise it tends to become an always incomplete list of companies/subjects that is prone to spam and is a nightmare to oversee and verify. If you want to nominate the other page, feel free. The existence of other articles doesn't really mean much, as all that usually means is that an article hasn't been nominated for deletion yet. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:12, 15 September 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. KTC (talk) 19:09, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Universal Boxing Organisation

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

Not a notable organization, relatively recent creation. Besides the issue of copy paste. Also be warned that the first reference sent my virus alert software into fits Peter Rehse (talk) 10:40, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:40, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:35, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Little or no mention in reliable sources. Nwlaw63 (talk) 14:53, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article lacks independent significant coverage. Minor organization with 8 open world championships. Papaursa (talk) 21:09, 15 September 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. Closed with no prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 15:51, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cherif Merzouki

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

Non-notable, seems page created solely because he was listed in a book of Algerian artists Caffeyw (talk) 02:46, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:32, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:33, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:41, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Week keep. As I noted in two related AfDs, that mention may well be enough. Please explain here why it wouldn't be and ping me so I can respond. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:30, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The book is simply a listing Algerian artists. If you painted one picture and are Algerian you would be included in the book. The second book is nothing but an updated version of the 1st. There's no articles about the subject, no reviews of their artwork. Basically someone went down the list of everyone in the book and created one line bios for all of them. The French Wiki doesn't even have pages for most of them, and the few that do are only one or two sentences. Caffeyw (talk) 08:56, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Caffeyw yes, but we can not acces to all book, this is problem, for article page 32 to 62 no access to the public, i want see all reference into the book, I have not this book, possible i will ask for that first. And i add to article too.Thank you --Great11 (talk) 14:23, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
keep notable--Great11 (talk) 02:55, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisting comment: Let us wait one more week.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:39, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter (talk) 13:39, 6 September 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, KTC (talk) 10:37, 14 September 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. KTC (talk) 19:08, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mai Mai Kata Katanga

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

Non-notable group fighting for Kata Katanga (meaning Katanga secede). Only recently formed. One reference provided is BBC article, but it's not about the group, but the fight for Katanga's succession over the years with passing mention to the newest group being Mai Mai Kata Katanga. Caffeyw (talk) 10:12, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:32, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:32, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Gédéon Kyungu Mutanga until additional reliable sources emerge to justify splitting off a standalone article. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 06:28, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article now has as much info as Gédéon Kyungu Mutanga, which is not an article nominated for deletion. To Caffeyw, it is your call to judge this 'non-notable', but with nearly 400,000 refugees as a result of their conflict, most would rather not deem it non-notable. To call it "passing mention" is also a judgment call; I clearly thought it was all about the effects of their rebellion. JustBeCool (talk) 17:28, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

JustBeCool - Your confusing the subject of this article with the overall conflict. I've never said the conflict is not worthy of an article. The articles referenced mention the overall conflict and mention that this is the newest group. Until the group becomes notable in it's own right it belongs on a page about the conflict or the leader if he's considered notable enough for one. Caffeyw (talk) 18:02, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you are not too familiar with this topic. So you admit the conflict is noteworthy, would this faction be noteworthy? Can you name any other group or leader on the separatist side other than Kata Katanga here, let alone one that is more prominent than Kata Katanga? JustBeCool (talk) 17:14, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per meeting WP:GNG. We can allow this brand new article to grow and expand over time and through regular editing by those who wish to build content. Apart from the two reliable sources ciring the article, we also have the topic spoken of in substantial articles by the global news agency Inter Press Service [18] another by Zimbawbwe Independent [19] another in African Review [20] and shorter ones by The Vatican Today [21] and Agenzia Fides [22]. I urge the nom to pay a little more attention to WP:BEFORE and WP:WIP prior to making a decision to nominate new articles for speedy or for AFD. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 07:58, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You did read those? Two of the five are the same story, and the other three of five are the same story also. Of those only the one posted twice seems to be about the group. The others where about a failed prison break and mentions it was the group that was trying to break into the prison. Caffeyw (talk) 14:22, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We do not expect nor demand that brand new articles be perfect, as Wikipedia is a work in progress with set processes through which we encourage building upon new contributions. We study WP:DEL#REASON to determine if something is truly worthy of deletion. We tag for editorial attention and nominate for deletion only as a last resort, not as a first resort. We look to see if there are options that serve the project, options that encourage improvements and do not chase off new contributors. And we remember that the topic of a Wikipedia article need not be the sole topic of an outside source providing verifiability of facts. And, as we do not dictate to the content of authored articles outside of Wikipedia, a topic's receiving coverage in multiple independent sources is the crux of WP:GNG. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 18:04, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I emphatically agree with MQS's analysis of the deletion process above and I also agree with the analysis ofthe sources. There's sufficient coverage, and we're usually fairly generous about affording coverage to political movements, in order to prevent cultural bias (the exclusion of articles from some geographic areas because of the relative difficulties in our current difficulty in finding as many sources as we would elsewhere.) DGG ( talk ) 18:03, 18 September 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. KTC (talk) 19:05, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chris King (serial entrepreneur)

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

Non-notable, and previously tagged by another user as such. Seems the only thing worth nothing about the guy is that he spends money on lots of different projects. None of which seem to be notable in their own right either. As it's written it looks like a "look at me I spent money on each of these projects" bio. Caffeyw (talk) 09:36, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:59, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:59, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. His projects do not seem notable, and neither does he. "Chris King Group" gets no worthwhile hits on Google News, for example. "Eco Dog Planet" gets no hits. Seems like self-promotion to me. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:16, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not quite G11, but the purpose of the article is obviously to promote his importance, and there's not enough substantial content to rewrite. Enghaging in multiple less than notable activities does not make for notability . DGG ( talk ) 00:03, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. jni (talk) 07:41, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Tomas e (talk) 16:01, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 15:55, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New Finns

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

Seems to be an essay/OR article about "New Finns". All the supporting references are either pure OR/essay or seem to not use it as specific term, but rather in general ie New Americans, New British, etc. Caffeyw (talk) 08:57, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:15, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:15, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is not OR. That the supporting references are essays or OR is expected--that's what we intend to do when we make articles--we write them to summarize the content of outside published sources. DGG ( talk ) 01:00, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If/when it gets deleted from the Finish Wikipedia I'd be inclined to believe the concept is non-notable, but with all the sourcing it appears to be a term of currency within Finish culture. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 02:10, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I do not agree with the nomination that sources are OR. There might be some debate per [23] as to whether this term is neutral, but it is unquestionably notable and in widespread use, otherwise you don't see KOTUS writing an article on it. --hydrox (talk) 14:47, 16 September 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 quorum. NPASR. —Darkwind (talk) 07:12, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talari Networks

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

Non-notable company. Most information appears to be sourced from it's linkedin page. All other mentions are of PR/incidental (company wins such and suchs award for X, etc). Nothing suggesting wide spread adoption. Caffeyw (talk) 08:21, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:15, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:15, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

weak Keep There seem to be some possibly significant awards. Unlike many articles in this subject area, there is no apparent promotionalism DGG ( talk ) 19:31, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I added a reference to the newest recognition the company has received, as one of CRN's Top Emerging Vendors of 2013. The list of the awards the company has won is quite significant. Interop is one of the top US tech shows for voice and data networking. Cisco, Citrix, HP and Samsung were among the many vendors who attended. I have also strengthened the article by removing the LinkedIn references, and replaced two references to Talari home pages with links to better third party sources. The LinkedIn references were just there to substantiate that the two co-founders had worked together. That by itself doesn't support the above writer's claim that most of the information is sourced from LinkedIn. I will work to add additional third party references to illustrate notability and widespread adoption, and will continue to improve the entry.Timtempleton (talk) 00:35, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Request to close discussion. Company is significant with good third party references to substantiate the notability. Original flagger Caffeyw is not reading talk pages or addressing the article improvements that were made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timtempleton (talk • contribs) 22:40, 20 September 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. —Darkwind (talk) 07:13, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tax controversy

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

Basically a dict term. Tax controversy is not a legal definition or otherwise common term, it's just two words put together. Hard for this to ever get past being a personal essay/OR Caffeyw (talk) 08:17, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:14, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:14, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (possible redirect if someone can find a good target) as WP:DICDEF. Ansh6 6 6 09:45, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
possibly merge to United States Tax Court Googling shows that the term is used at least in advertizing and academic discussion but as a term in itself I can't imagine how there is much more to say beyond the present definition. Seyasirt (talk) 11:40, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In future, the nominator needs to search Google Books before nominating an article for deletion. This nomination is preposterous. There are a substantial number of entire books devoted to this subject. Their titles refer to, amongst other things, practice and procedure which is not going to be a dictionary definition. There is no case for deletion and it may be possible to expand this article. James500 (talk) 18:14, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No book I see on Google Books will be able to save this article: either it doesn't expand beyond WP:DICDEF or it falls afoul of WP:NOTGUIDE once expanded. Take your pick. Ansh6 6 6 18:30, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It is possible to discuss litigation as a subject without giving instructions or advice. It is not obvious to me, without reading them cover to cover, that these books are completely unsuitable. James500 (talk) 18:57, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - At best the books are about tax controversies. Not using the term in any manner other then to describe a controversy that involves taxes. There's books on food controversies, marriage controversies, etc it's endless. Just putting a descriptive word before controversy doesn't make a whole new term worthy of an article. Caffeyw (talk) 18:35, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, "controversy"is another word for "case". In other words, we are talking about tax litigation. To give an analagous example, "criminal case" presently redirects to "trial". James500 (talk) 18:57, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to income tax audit, as this is really part of the larger, clearer topic of being audited. (And I suggest that in the future, those who argue on the basis of all-the-sources-if-you-just-use-thr-right-Google actually point to specific sources.) -Nat Gertler (talk) 19:11, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I created this article, and was frankly surprised to find it wasn't already on the site. I came across capitalized phrase on a lawyer friend's website, and went to look it up on the site only to find nothing. Wikipedia plays a great role in taking the (relatively) unknown world and making it known, but can sometimes be a little behind with documenting industry specific terms. There are hundreds and thousands of results that come up when you Google Tax Controversy. It is apparently a very common legal term, and many very well known companies such as PriceWaterHouseCoopers and Deloitte have divisions specifically named as offering Tax Controversy services. Both the University of California, Los Angeles and New York University have Tax Controversy Institutes that host annual conferences on the subject. I would add links to their sites but I suspect they would be removed as my earlier references were. So you can see that with this field of law, it is not a simple pairing of dictionary words, as one of the commentators above posted. To illustrate this point another way, I offer up the contrasting uncapitalized usage of the words tax controversy when discussing corporations' failure to pay income tax by offshoring operations, or discussions related to raising taxes on the top 1% of income earners. Those usages would not warrant their own entry. On a related note, why wouldn't the same dictionary argument apply to the Audit Representation entry? It's a slippery slope. Another commenter above suggested that this is just tax litigation. It turns out to be more than that. When you are audited, you are not automatically in litigation. Often the Tax Controversy legal services work with the IRS to resolve differences without requiring costly litigation. To conclude, Wikipedia is a great open platform that encourages discussion and contribution from a wide range of people. It would be a shame if people's unfamiliarity with a specific technical term causes its deletion, because that's defeating the whole purpose of this great site. I don't see any downside in including this article, and hope to eventually expand upon it and include third party references.Timtempleton (talk) 20:07, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Except Google doesn't really have the hundreds of thousands of results they reported; if you start to page through those results, you'll find somewhere around the 400th one, they'll tell you that that's all the unique results they have. And some of those do not relate to "tax controversy" as being discussed here, but are merely the two words arising together for some other reason (two politicians arguing over a sales tax controversy, for example). Whether tax audit representation deserves its own article is a separate question. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:27, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the good point on the number of results - I don't want my case to be based on erroneous info. Nonetheless, there are too many to count, real, valid sites that have discussions of Tax Controversy practices. This illustrates widespread adoption, the benchmark for keeping the entry up.Timtempleton (talk) 00:39, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There certainly seems to be a number of lawyer sites using the term to discuss services that they offer. That doesn't mean that we have good reliable sources that will give us non-biased information that will expand this beyond a definition, nor that this information is not best seen within the context of some larger discussion, with a redirect pointing the term "tax controversy" to there. "Widespread adoption" of a term does not mean that we need to keep an article about it, particularly when it could be more effectively merged. --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:01, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't seem that we're in agreement about the significance of the term. I'll ask you to reread my earlier post, with the references to not lawyer sites but also how major financial consulting firms and large universities are using the phrase within their business models. Tax Controversy is not an audit or tax litigation - it is a reference to having a tax dispute with a tax agency. It doesn't have to be the IRS - it can be worldwide, and I just edited the article to clarify that point. That makes it harder to merge into a single other article. It really is its own unique animal. If you want to merge the IRS, the Central French Government, Swedish Tax Agency and Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs, among others into the Tax article, then I suppose we could add Tax Controversy as a subsubject. That seems like a lot of work when this works fine as a standalone article. Do you think if I found and linked to legal research papers, that would help satisfy the sourcing requirement? I'd like to hear from Caffeyw.Timtempleton (talk) 07:37, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, what it's looking like is a standalone definition, and plenty of folks using a term is a great reason to have a definition... in Wiktionary. Yes, income tax audit is inappropriately US-centric at the moment, and is labeled as such. But can you point me to some specific non-promotional sources (preferably something online) that show that there is more to say about this? --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:25, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The term has been used for a while in the legal field. Here's a 1999 article from the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center.^[1]

References

^ "Tax Controversy Among the Low-Income Population". Tax Policy Center. 1999-03-17. Retrieved 2013-09-17.

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 15:58, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Miles Park (race track)

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

Lack of notability. It opened, there where races, it burned to the ground. Main reference is to a comcast personal webspace page, and a link to a newspaper article about it burning. User has had other articles of race tracks turned down at AfC because of simliar issue where the only information seems to be it opened, there where races, it closed/burned/went bankrupt/etc. Caffeyw (talk) 07:57, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:14, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:14, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Racetracks are significant cultural features in their areas; what information would you expect other than about the construction, the races, and the destruction. That's what people use them for. The same is true for any venue for athletics. Most of the references will inevitably be the competitions held there. This sort or reductionism can destroy the meaning of any article. Consider a college: consider a college: it is constructed, people come and attend classes, they graduate. DGG ( talk ) 17:47, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If there where competitions that are notable, or the field had something notable happen sure. Where there events that drew people from all around for a special event? As it stands now, it's just an article about an everyday horse track that opened, had a few non-notable races, and closed for whatever reason. There needs to be something to show notability, simply being a horse track is not notable, there's hundreds if not thousands past and present. Also schools get a pass on AfDs because of consensus that while not notable there's a benefit to having them here if they meet certain conditions. Caffeyw (talk) 17:57, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As DGG said, racetracks are significant aspect of the cultural fabric of a city and region. To answer the nom's question above, there were events that drew people from all around on a daily basis. It was of no surprise it took less than five seconds to find significant coverage of this race track, including its subsequent name "Commonweath Race Course." [24][25][26][27][28]--Oakshade (talk) 19:30, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep As shown by Oakshade, the topic meets our inclusion criteria. I would encourage the nominator to read and show understanding of WP:BEFORE, WP:WIP, and WP:PERFECT before continuing nominations of stubby articles on notable topics which can and should be allowed to grow over time and through regular editing to better serve the project. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:32, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per valid points made by DGG, Schmidt and Oakshade. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 20:38, 20 September 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. —Darkwind (talk) 07:23, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Commodore Downs

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

Non-notable closed horse racing track. Sole reference is to someone's comcast personal webspace. Caffeyw (talk) 07:49, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:13, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:14, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As with the multiple other racetracks the nom has suddenly AfD'd, racetracks have been are still are a major part of the cultural fabric of a city and region. That a ___location is "closed" has nothing to do with notability. The nom admittedly didn't follow WP:BEFORE and simply presumed the sources that were in the article at AfD were the only ones that existed. Not surprisingly it took seconds to find significant coverage on this race track. [29][30][31][32][33] --Oakshade (talk) 19:48, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets the GNG with coverage in major newspapers over at least a 10 year time frame. The Steve 11:20, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Concur with the views expressed above. Definitely notable & worthy of a Wikipedia article. Finnegas (talk) 14:31, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. —Darkwind (talk) 07:30, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Trinity Meadows Race Track

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

Non-notable defunct race track. User seems to have taken to writing articles of one line or short paragraph of defunct horse racing tracks in TX. Can't verify opening date even Caffeyw (talk) 07:46, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:13, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:13, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in the expectation that additional information will be added, as with all WP articles. That it is defunct is not relevant--we record historical subjects also. DGG ( talk ) 19:29, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep even without searching, the sources already in the article are more than significant. There is absolutely nothing wrong with creating multiple stub articles of notable topics, be it about places in Texas or anywhere else. Being unable to verify the opening date has nothing to do with notability (actually, it probably is verifiable). I dare the nom to AfD the Tower of David which the opening date is currently unverifiable with the same rationale. --Oakshade (talk) 19:38, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Concur with the views expressed above. Definitely notable & worthy of a Wikipedia article. Finnegas (talk) 14:54, 23 September 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 Naval Historical Foundation. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 16:01, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Commodore Dudley W. Knox Naval History Lifetime Achievement Award

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

A little bit too soon. Award for Lifetime Achievement for historians, that just had it's first awarding this summer. Even if award becomes something permanent it's next awarding won't be till someone has had a lifetime as a historian. Caffeyw (talk) 07:27, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:12, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, DC-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:12, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Naval Historical Foundation, the awarding institution. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:14, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per Bushranger. No appearance in news and book sources. Binksternet (talk) 10:43, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Please do not delete the categories from the redirect. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:09, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to being a section of Naval Historical Foundation. Not worth having a separate article at this time.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:44, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Naval Historical Foundation as a new section. The award (apparently a new one) will fit vey well in that article. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:56, 17 September 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. None of the sources pass WP:V, as noted by several editors in the discussion. —Darkwind (talk) 07:34, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Fischer

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

Article about a person that does not establish significance and is written like an advertisement. I've cleaned up a lot of the advertising nonsense, but the whole thing is still like an advertisement for a random person. The article establishes that the person had an interesting life and was a successful business person, but that can be said for far more people than should be on Wikipedia. The only historical significance mentioned is controversial, and, before I got my hands on it, was obviously incorrect. I'm just not seeing the underlying significance here. The references are largely primary sources, which is unacceptable, and greatly degrades the already suffering trustworthiness of the article. Most of the article contains insignificant tidbits, with the only possibly significant section being quite controversial by Wikipedia's standards. —Zenexer [talk] 06:26, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:43, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:43, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:43, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:43, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - At first I was inclined to delete as his music career doesn't appear notable and this is what the article majors on, but he does have notability for his internet marketing career - both as one of the first internet marketers and as a big name in the domaining industry. However the article is promotional and that needs to change. JASpencer (talk) 13:30, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He's certainly "big" in the domaining industry, but so are quite a few people--far more than would fit on Wikipedia. He was hardly the first, though from the looks of it, he loves to claim that he was. —Zenexer [talk] 02:38, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets GNG through multiple independent RS'es present in article. Jclemens (talk) 06:24, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Utter trite. I work in music based articles and I can tell you now, there is nothing there in the music section which fulfills WP:BAND. I would not oppose pulling the whole lot down and starting again, but at the moment just get this garbage off Wikipedia.--Laun chba ller 08:53, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I am not clear whether the subject is an evangelist, a musician or a software engineer. I am concerned about the COI and ADVERT issues, but I will accept JASpencer's view on notability. That probably means that the article needs restructuring so that being a musician and an evangelist become subsidiary. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:12, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree with Peterkingiron and JASpencer. I feel this article doesn't really state why he is notable clearly and think it could do with some work. As mentioned by Launchballer, if the music section isn't notable then perhaps that could be cut down to make the notability clearer. Verdict78 (talk) 15:49, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the article doesn't state why he is notable this can actually be speedied under WP:A7.--Laun chba ller 17:41, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

sorry written in a hurry, should read 'clearly state'. However after reading the entire article, if rephrased I do think it would be a credible article Verdict78 (talk) 18:19, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note I suspect that much of the notability is falsified, along with other information. The sources provided do not indicate notability—they're largely primary—so unless someone can provide better sources, I see no grounds for notability here. The bit of digging that I've done shows that he likes to get his name out there, but doesn't have a whole lot to show for it. Anyone can pay to be on a bunch of news blogs and such. As SEO overlaps with his "notable" background, I wouldn't be surprised if pretty much everything on him Internet-wise is not representative of his notability. A few hard sources—off of the Internet; actually printed—would shatter this theory, but I can't find any. Can he really be that notable in this day and age if there are no properly published works about him? I've dealt with domains plenty, and I've certainly never heard of him until now. —Zenexer [talk] 15:13, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, not that it's grounds for deletion, but another article, Phil fischer, was deleted three times. This is the fourth reincarnation of this article. —Zenexer [talk] 15:15, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RHaworth has very kindly restored those revisions to this page for at least the duration of this AfD if it interests anybody.--Laun chba ller 11:08, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Just an observation, but he has featured in Miami Business Magazine, Silicon Valley Reporter, Northwest Magazine and The Sacramento Union just quickly running through his references, one of which is a printed reference. I would say that the sources provided establish he's a successful businessman. Verdict78 (talk) 22:32, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Miami Business Magazine, Silicon Valley Reporter, and NorthWest Magazine are all fronts for a "public relations" company. The articles are all marked as paid advertisements. See new section below. I can't find anything related to The Sacramento Union involving Phil Fischer. —Zenexer [talk] 07:15, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The material in the Miami Business Magazine seems like pure gossip, and gives me an impression of utter unreliability ( some guys met in a bar....) The NW Marketing story is a straightforward advertisement apparently written by the subject. SV Reporter gave me a 404 error. These are not the sort of sources we can use for a BLP. DGG ( talk ) 01:01, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The Silicon Valley Reporter isn't a 404 deadlink, just tried it. See note below Arnold568 (talk) 09:52, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as I feel that Fischer is notable. The silicon valley reporter and Sacramento Union are perfectly notable article. As for the other sources that have been rubbished, I think they are pretty credible references and this is why they were used originally, but yes the article might need some improvement after reading the points made here. The article states Fischer went platinum in South America with one of his albums. Secondly it's clear to me that his business career has had some pretty notable points, the ownership of the domains been pretty crucial in this. In regards to references, I'd say something somewhere will have been printed about this, but I'm not sure how you'd source a printed newspaper from the 1980's personally. I think to comment delete with the information available is a hasty decision personally. Arnold568 (talk) 16:33, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Using {{Cite journal}}.--Laun chba ller 10:37, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Seems ultimately self-sourced, unreliable, and promotional to the extent that the best course would be to get rid of it. —BarrelProof (talk) 05:33, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note for clarification the Silicon Valley Report article is still live. I presume the comments above about it being a 404 must have meant they were messing around internally with the pages. While looking for that article, I came across another valid article also by the silicon valley reporter. http://www.siliconvalleyreporter.com/silicon-valley-news/mobile-tech/phil-fischers-redmond-based-start-up-leading-mobile-revolution/ Arnold568 (talk) 09:52, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is a Featured article. Someone paid to have it published. In other words, it's an ad. It's allegedly written by one Sharon Patton--who, apparently, is Phil Fischer's mother. Like I said, this smells of "phony". —Zenexer [talk] 06:16, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This person passes GNG and is notable for his marketing work. I think the other stuff could be kept under his personal life.—stinkyegg (talk) 08:18, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Perhaps we need to call in an administrator, because someone is clearly trying to manipulate the notability of this person. See the note about the "Featured" article above. —Zenexer [talk] 06:18, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I added #List of potentially notable sources to objectify this. —Zenexer [talk] 07:09, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Curiously, Northwest Public Relations is located in Washington, Phil Fischer's home state. A Phillip Fischer (not necessary the same one, but it appears to be) was CEO of a similarly named company, Northwest Online. Archive.org has a seemingly solid description in Phil Fischer's words of his achievements. If we're looking for an unbiased history of Phil Fischer, ironically, I think that's the best we're going to get. It seems he was relatively successful, but the success was short-lived, and perhaps not on par with our notability standards. —Zenexer [talk] 07:52, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the "best" sources are Northwest Magazine, Silicon Valley Reporter and Miami Business Magazine. According to their terms and conditions, all three are owned by "Noth West Public Relations" [sic]. Quote: "You warrant, understand, and agree that Owner is providing this Website for use by those who wish to utilize the public relations, search engine optimization and online reputation management products and services provided by Owner." Those are not reliable sources; they're paid PR. I also find it hard to assume good faith when multiple editors with less than a hundred edits each appear and try to convince us that the above are reliable, independent sources. Huon (talk) 07:46, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a company that specializes in creating fake users to support their clients on popular sites. Perhaps this page should at least be protected? —Zenexer [talk] 07:56, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of potentially reliable sources

I'm adding this because people seem tripped up by the "paid" sources. —Zenexer [talk] 06:37, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to Huon, who discovered that many of these publishers are publicly owned by Northwest Public Relations. A visit to this site indicates that they specialize in falsifying notability, for a variety of reasons. —Zenexer [talk] 07:06, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unreliable

Paid co
Primary sources, for the sake of completeness
- Facebook
- Phil Fischer (personal website)
- MySpace
- Twitter
- LinkedIn
- Google+
- Archive.org: AmeriContinental Collect Corporation: Primary source
Wrong person, as many of these come up on the first page or two of a Google search for "phil fischer"
- Bond Buyer Online
- Investopedia (died 2004)
- Mayo Clinic
- Bloomberg
Other
- LyricsFreak: Anyone can submit content; only one song has been rated

Reliable

None so far; check back later

Comments

Notability regards articles, not sources; you're thinking of reliability. If there are that many Phil Fischers then why not craft a disambiguation page out of it?--Laun chba ller 09:51, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sources are the most common way of establishing notability. These sources were mistakenly being used for that purpose. They are also required for a valid article, and seeing as we can find no valid sources, this is not a valid article. There are 2-3 other Phil Fischers who, at first glance, appear to be somewhat notable. Feel free to make a disambiguation page, but you'll need content to disambiguate. —Zenexer [talk] 10:03, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Some very interesting points made recently, ones I didn't notice when creating the article. However, I've tried the Northwest Magazine terms and conditions that a couple of people seem to be talking about and see nothing about a Northwest Relations?

The Sacramento Union does seem to be a credible paper (no longer printing) and the author also seems to be credible. I think we need to be careful presuming if someone did/didn't write an article without any proof and also presume that the articles were paid releases without any proof. Until someone can prove they were paid releases or that the Sacramento article doesn't exist they should be taken on good faith as Wikipedia doesn't work on presumption, we need evidence. Newspapers are really struggling in the United States, so it's no surprise they don't bother to "archive" all of their content. As with the Sacramento Union, many are out of business and never maintained archives.

The Kamloops Daily News is credible and I took the time to call and verified the story of the subject starting the British Columbia Contractors Association.

I personally have purchased Northwest Magazine in news stands when I visited Seattle as recent as 2009. I admit it was loaded with ads for tourists and few serious articles but I seriously doubt its owned by a PR firm. I am under the impression that some just don't want the subject to have a page for reasons we will never know. Arnold568 (talk) 00:51, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Google Cache still has the terms and conditions as they were publicly displayed less than 24 hours ago: [34] [35][36] Today, after I have brought them up in this discussion, they have changed. I find it very hard to believe in coincidence here. Huon (talk) 02:50, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The historical order may indeed be notable, but the page is primarily about the recent revival, for which no WP:RS have been cited. Deleting under the principle of WP:TNT, with no prejudice against using the title for an article primarily about the historic order. —Darkwind (talk) 07:41, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Order of the Eagle of Georgia and the Seamless Tunic of Our Lord Jesus Christ

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

A previous iteration of this article was deleted through AfD last year [37] with the rationale "Non-notable faux order created by members of a self-appointed Royal House of Georgia. Sourced only to that organization's website and to the article creator's blog. No news hits, no Scholar hits, Google search dominated by Wiki mirrors and heraldry blogs. Fails the GNG." While I've no idea if this is a recreation warranting a speedy delete, it has substantively the same problems with sourcing, legitimacy and notability. I've nothing against self-proclaimed "nobles" of a non-existent "kingdom" declaring their right to award a centuries-defunct honor, but it's the moral equivalent of a WP:NFT violation. Ravenswing 22:30, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:32, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the content is substantially the same, it can be speedied, otherwise delete as hoax. Suggest salt too. Ansh6 6 6 03:57, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - certainly not a hoax, the order was founded by and is still awarded by the heads of the Royal House of Bagrationi(-Mukhrani) of Georgia. Looking at the official website of the Royal House a recent awarding of the order received coverage in the Spanish and Georgian media.[38] The order is also covered in Burkes Peerage's World Orders of Knighthood and Merit by Guy Stair Sainty.[39] There is probably greater coverage of the order in Georgian rather than in English sources. - dwc lr (talk) 19:06, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Reliable sources must be independent of the subject. We are not permitted to rely upon this "royal house"'s own website's assertion of coverage. Such sources must be provided. You can also not merely assert that independent Georgian sources might exist -- you must supply such sources. Ravenswing 19:50, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The website provides links to independent news articles in Georgia/Spain that one can follow, the use of a self published, in this case official, website does not make it unreliable and they are allowed to be used as sources. It's not ideal to cite the article solely to the website but there are other sources such as the Burke's book. I'm just making the observation that when you say there are "No news hits, no Scholar hits, Google search dominated by Wiki mirrors and heraldry blogs" I'm assuming this is under its English name which is not ideal in establishing notability of a Georgian order. For me based on the above coverage and sources the notability is there without the need for me to do a Georgian language internet search using an online translator. - dwc lr (talk) 20:38, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Such order indeed exists and such article has right to be on Wiki. GEORGIANJORJADZE 08:19, 14 September 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, Ymblanter (talk) 07:46, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per CSD:G4. Technical 13 (talk) 16:00, 5 September 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, —SpacemanSpiff 07:01, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No independent sources or proof doktorb _words^deeds 08:27, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - GeorgianJorjdze's vote is not policy based, and DWC LR doesn't provide any independent reliable sources. There are no other reliable sources that I can find, so we have a failure of WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:54, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable sources. jni (talk) 07:34, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Apparently a recognized [40] chivalric order, reinstated from the time of Queen Tamar. There are other societies that recognize them. The Steve 11:42, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the order is listed in the World Orders of Knighthood & Merit by Guy Stair Sainty where the long history is listed. --Kimon^talk 18:03, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, in the context of the 12th century order associated with Queen Tamar, rather than the 'revival' by the deposed Bagrationi pretenders. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:29, 24 September 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. —Darkwind (talk) 07:43, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Muslim Students' Organization of India

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

There is only one reliable sourced on this organization, consisting of only four sentences. I spent more than a week trying to find anything else and couldn't. While sources can be found on separate, unrelated Muslim student bodies at Indian universities, this one turned up nothing. Additionally, the article was created by a now indefinitely blocked sockpuppet account with a history of creating articles on non-notable subjects; the puppetmaster account, which is run by representatives of this org, created a number of sock accounts to avoid detection while creating articles of this nature during its long blocks. Not only does the article fail WP:ORG and even WP:GNG, but there also seems to be a COI problem of creating articles solely to generate online buzz. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:15, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:19, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:19, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:19, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Note that even the webpage of the organization is dead ~~and it's quite possible that the org is now defunct~~. Additionally, given the generic nature of the organization's name, we run the risk of creating a chimeric beast of an article unless we can find at least a few independent sources that cover it in depth. Abecedare (talk) 07:09, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This report says that the group was active at least in November 2011. But Google search is giving mixed results. It happens so that Students Islamic Movement of India was also formed in 1977 at Aligarh, where this subject organization is also claimed to have been formed. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 10:55, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The SIMI match is interesting. I wonder if it is because MSO is the same org (unlikely, IMO), or because MSO split off at some point but claims rights to those roots (quite possible), or ... (we simply don't have enough reliable sources to nail down such issues, and are left to guess to fill in the picture). The org does seem alive per the news item/press release located by Shawn. So striking that bit of my speculation above. Abecedare (talk) 18:37, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, per Abecedare, and my own experiences with these accounts. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:37, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If the organization is so moribund, and WP:RS so impossible to find, why does Google News reveal this hit from August 17 of this year? Wait, I see the news item is actually attributed to "Shujaat Ali Quadri ,National Secretary , MSO of India" at the bottom. So this is in fact some kind of news release? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:27, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 14 September 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. —Darkwind (talk) 07:46, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Swift, Illinois

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

Described as an unincorporated community in the article, which then goes to say that "Swift is actually not the name of the neighborhood. In fact, there is no true name for this neighborhood." Appears to be an arbitrary ___location rather than a real community; the article also does not cite any references. Delete for failing verifiability. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 05:39, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:42, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as I have previously tagged it as possible hoax. — Mayast (talk) 08:12, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. According to the USGS (422109), Swift is a U6 unincorporated community and its coordinates place it close to where the article says it is. The board at USGS accepted the name in 1980. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- For what it's worth, the GNIS classifies the ___location as a "populated place", with the following definition: "Place or area with clustered or scattered buildings and a permanent human population (city, settlement, town, village). A populated place is usually not incorporated and by definition has no legal boundaries. However, a populated place may have a corresponding "civil" record, the legal boundaries of which may or may not coincide with the perceived populated place. Distinct from Census and Civil classes." - Mike Rosoft (talk) 21:35, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is a Swift in the GNIS, but it's not the same place as the apparent subject of this article. The Swift in the GNIS is located at the coordinates given in the article, but it's centered at Swift Road and Collins Avenue, which is a ways south of the ___location described in the article. The ___location in the GNIS (which is also on USGS topographic maps) is now part of Addison, as is most of the land between that ___location and the intersection of Swift Road and Army Trail Road. I can't find any other sources that refer to a Swift at either ___location (there's no news or book coverage, and it's not on IDOT maps of the county or township), so it's probably not worth changing the article to be about the GNIS-listed Swift. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 00:21, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep It seems to be a recognized municipality according to Mapquest, and AOL. No other evidence found, but no need to rush to delete here. NOt so sure it exists, but I have 2 sources.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:17, 15 September 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. —Darkwind (talk) 07:48, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

American Sleep Apnea Association

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

It is claimed that "loads" of reliable sources can be found - I must be looking in the wrong place. I haven't found more than a passing mention in articles about other things. That doesn't meet "significant coverage" that is required. Regardless, the article as it stands reads like what should be on their website, not in an encyclopedia article. ~Charmlet ^-talk- 15:13, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Google Scholar and Google Books results linked above demonstrate that this association is frequently cited and/or recommended as a resource in academic sources, the totality of which is significant. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:58, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I see tons of mentions and citations. No significant coverage. Please link some here if you find some. ~Charmlet ^-talk- 16:45, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - You appear to have ignored the final clause in my comment above. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:18, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Please see WP:42 for a definition of "significant". Multiple passing mentions != significant coverage. Significant coverage is on a source-by-source basis, just as reliability and independence are. Having 100 somewhat-kinda-reliable-ish-abit sources does not equal a reliable source. Nor does having 100 passing mentions equal significant coverage. ~Charmlet ^-talk- 22:24, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- if it is found to be notable and kept, the article needs a lot of work. There is only one instance of inline citation (for the lead) and the rest of the article is unreferenced. Per the nomination the language at times is not suitable. The "partner organizations" and EL sections also seem rather unencyclopedic. Wikipedia is not a link farm for charities. Lesion (talk) 16:28, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would certainly agree with that, but this discussion is about whether this is a notable topic, not the current content of the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:33, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The content of the article absolutely factors into the decision whether to delete. May have appeared like I was being lazy not to search for sources myself, but my internet is being crazy slow today ... so I offered a "comment" rather than "delete". Lesion (talk) 16:43, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Again, the same as with the American Association of Sleep Technologists, a search of Sleep Review magazine's website, finds 387 articles, many with significant coverage of this organization. Bill Pollard (talk) 11:50, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If this is voted to be kept, I will also get valid references placed into this article. This is one in which I had no part writing, unlike the other two now under scrutiny. Bill Pollard (talk) 01:33, 11 September 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) 04:56, 14 September 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) 06:39, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Superpower (ability)

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

Long unreferenced original research entry about the phrase "superpower". Has been had no improvements made to it since creation. Just an ever growing essay. The talk page is just a few random conversations about more original research. Nice essay here but I'm see no evidence this can or will ever be made encyclopedic. Ridernyc (talk) 20:26, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The discussion on the talk page I've heard a thousand times over on college campuses and at conventions. I'm shocked this article is in as poor of a state as it is in. But there are certainly sources out there and it can be improved. I wouldn't be quick to say this is original research. More like un-cited research because I don't see an original idea in the whole article. Also, hundred of pages link to this page so the page is in high demand. Where did you look for sources? 42of8 (talk) 07:02, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:24, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:24, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:25, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So you have heard this original research a thousand times, and you have no sources to show it is not original research so once again we have a WP:ILIKEIT. Ridernyc (talk) 17:01, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with a strong recommendation toward a rewrite. A credible article could be written about this topic. The current article is worthless, but deletion is not cleanup. NinjaRobotPirate (talk)

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) 04:55, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but it needs some clean-up. It's not that bad. I can certainly see someone looking this up on Wikipedia, and it's notable enough to deserve a page. How do you make a factual topic about something fictional? I'd start with: what it means, its history, and perhaps some particularly famous popular culture references. —Zenexer [talk] 07:31, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up - definitely passes the WP:N threshold. Ansh6 6 6 09:49, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as said above, passes the WP:N threshold. MisterMorton (talk) 14:40, 20 September 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 Features of the Marvel Universe. —Darkwind (talk) 07:50, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lemuria (comics)

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

Two non-notable fictional locations in the Marvel Universe. No real world context and written in-universe. I can find no sources and I doubt there are any sources that would ever be able to add significant real world context to this article. Ridernyc (talk) 21:21, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A significant number of pages link to this article. Because Lemuria is used in several other contexts, finding sources will not be easy. Where did you look for sources? One independent, reliable source has already been given in the article. It is likely that more sources are available. The article can be expanded and sources added. 42of8 (talk) 06:27, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:50, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:50, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:50, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete as non-notable. Best suited to Wikia. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:17, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Features of the Marvel Universe. Now that we've kept Features, it seems like a good place to merge this article, and one of the better arguments for keeping Features was that we could merge all these semi-notable locations into it. Extended coverage of these topics is best suited to Wikia, and a brief overview in Features seems more appropriate than a dedicated article that will struggle with notability issues and reliable sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:45, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per arguments of 42of8 and bd2412; failing that, merge into Features of the Marvel Universe would be better than deletion. BOZ (talk) 15:15, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. See, e.g., B. J. Oropeza, The Gospel According to Superheroes: Religion and Pop Culture (2005), p. 123: "In 1976 Kirby developed another team of super characters, this time for Marvel Comics, called The Eternals. The comic book followed the pattern of his earlier DC titles, but it enjoyed as much popularity. In the story, the Eternals exist as race of immortal-like heroes who were mistaken as gods by earlier civilizations on Earth. They originated as one of three species of humanity that evolved from an ancient genetic experiment done by the Celestials, a god-like race of giants who occasionally visit the earth and were responsible for a great flood that sank the ancient kingdom of Lemuria". bd2412 T 21:36, 9 September 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) 04:53, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Features or delete it. The reference above has all to do with Eternals (comics) and nothing to do with this topic. Unless there is something specific describing the development of the ___location, something related to the development of the overall series does nothing for it. TTN (talk) 20:04, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Features, there aren't enough sources on this for a separate article. --Cerebellum (talk) 00:37, 15 September 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 Features of the Marvel Universe. —Darkwind (talk) 07:51, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

K'un-L'un

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

Non-notable fictional ___location in the Marvel Universe. No real world context and written in-universe. I can find no sources and I doubt there are any sources that would ever be able to add significant real world context to this article. Ridernyc (talk) 21:28, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A number of Marvel reference books discuss this ___location and it has appeared in a large number of comic books. It's likely that citations can be found. The article could be expanded. Where did you look for references? 42of8 (talk) 05:44, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:51, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:51, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:51, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete as non-notable. This should be on Wikia.com. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:57, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Features of the Marvel Universe. I'm going to repeat myself, but the rationale is the same as in Lemuria. Now that we've kept Features, it seems like a good place to merge this article, and one of the better arguments for keeping Features was that we could merge all these semi-notable locations into it. Extended coverage of these topics is best suited to Wikia, and a brief overview in Features seems more appropriate than a dedicated article that will struggle with notability issues and reliable sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:50, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per arguments of 42of8 and bd2412; failing that, merge into Features of the Marvel Universe would be better than deletion. BOZ (talk) 15:15, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Adequately referenced for its subject matter. bd2412 T 15:56, 13 September 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) 04:51, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the features article. The tidbit about the name is too trivial to establish the notability of the topic, so it should not remain independent without satisfying a certain threshold. TTN (talk) 20:09, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability out of the fictional work in which it appears not established.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:12, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the Features article. There are sources for this (e.g. [41], [42], [43], [44]), but none of them have substantial enough coverage to warrant a stand-alone article. --Cerebellum (talk) 00:41, 15 September 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 Features of the Marvel Universe. —Darkwind (talk) 07:51, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Heliopolis (Marvel Comics)

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

Non-notable fictional ___location in the Marvel Universe. No real world context and written in-universe. I can find no sources and I doubt there are any sources that would ever be able to add significant real world context to this article. Ridernyc (talk) 21:39, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep A significant number of pages link to this article. At least one verifiable independent source has given is significant coverage. It seems like there ought to be more sources available. Where did you look for sources? 42of8 (talk) 05:47, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:52, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:52, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:52, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pages linking to the article have no relevance in an AFD. As far as sourcing once again please find multiple reliable independent sources that cover the real world context of the subject. Please do not reply yet again with "I found X number of Google hits." Ridernyc (talk) 17:05, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete as non-notable. This stuff really belongs on Wikia. I can't imagine a rationale for keeping something this non-notable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:46, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Features of the Marvel Universe. I'm going to cut and paste the same rationale that I've used elsewhere, but it applies perfectly to this nomination, too. Now that we've kept Features, it seems like a good place to merge this article, and one of the better arguments for keeping Features was that we could merge all these semi-notable locations into it. Extended coverage of these topics is best suited to Wikia, and a brief overview in Features seems more appropriate than a dedicated article that will struggle with notability issues and reliable sources.

Keep or merge into Features of the Marvel Universe. BOZ (talk) 15:15, 9 September 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) 04:47, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Features or delete it. It does not meet notability requirements and it is unlikely to ever meet them. TTN (talk) 20:11, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Features, not enough sources for a standalone article. --Cerebellum (talk) 00:44, 15 September 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. —Darkwind (talk) 07:52, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ryk E. Spoor

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

Subject does not appear to satisfy Notability guidelines as most of the information comes from LiveJournal or his publisher's website and appears to be more about promoting his books than discussing any significant accomplishments. LovelyLillith (talk) 00:53, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:33, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:33, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He's had a whole lot of stuff published via Baen Books; I'd call that notability. DS (talk) 11:49, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Published author does not make inherent notability. WP:AUTHOR #3 requires multiple book reviews in reliable sources. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 14:57, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete His most popular[45] book is Boundary. I'm unable to find any reviews of this book in reliable sources. There's blogs and other unreliable sources. It would not pass WP:AUTHOR #3. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 15:07, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Reliable sources? Here's the Publishers Weekly of Threshold which was a Wall Street Journal best-seller. - Dravecky (talk) 02:44, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great, that's one review. Any others? Best seller isn't used as a metric for notability for a number of reasons. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 14:31, 12 September 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) 04:40, 14 September 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. —Darkwind (talk) 07:53, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jeeva Sathish

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

Procedural. CSD A7 declined by IP. Not notable. GregJackP Boomer! 01:22, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 6 September 2013 (UTC) Note: Please consider reading WP:INDAFD which includes some points about WikiProject India AFDs. Those may or may not be applicable here. Tito☸Dutta 01:45, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Does not pass WP:GNG. The only thing which might save the article is— if the person is popular with his alternative name. I have tried finding sources for his "short series"^{[clarification needed]} and date of birth (the two additional queries I have listed above), but, have not found any source. --Tito☸Dutta 01:51, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable and very substantially ccovered in reliable independent sources. " He is the one among the youngester who created an world record in theatre acting and also honored by notable personalities in india. He is also listed in Internet movie database, recongnised by universal records USA ( links given )and notable person who has made an extraordinary contribution in the field of theatre arts. " It is worth considering. Sources are relisted

Jeeva sathish at IMDB Internet Movie Database http://www.imdb.com/name/nm4756008/bio Jeeva sathish recognition at universal records USA , URDB http://r.urdb.org/BRZ http://recordsetter.com/world-record/theater-performance/5294#contentsecti — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.242.215.51 (talk • contribs) 19:12, 6 September 2013

Delete Leaving aside the fact that the IP who removed the CSD tag is very likely the article's creator editing whilst logged out, this person does not appear to meet the basic requirements of WP:NACTOR. Yunshui 雲‍水 20:58, 6 September 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) 04:33, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As the only sources the page creator has brought up are user generated, I doubt any others exist. --Mdann52talk to me! 18:06, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 06:36, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alien Zetton

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

This character does not establish notability independent of Ultraman through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of overly in-depth plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:52, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:53, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:53, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:53, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:01, 6 September 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) 04:32, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lots of fan trivia but no sources and no indication of sufficient notability to justify a self-standing article. Incidentally, it would probably have been easier if all of the similar Ultraman monster articles were listed for deletion at the same time. --DAJF (talk) 06:13, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lacking citations to assert notability. TTN (talk) 10:46, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete part of a whole slew of non-notable characters that we don't need articles on.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:00, 16 September 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. —Darkwind (talk) 07:54, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mariposa, Rio Rancho, New Mexico

AfDs for this article:

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

Article speculates about a business venture, and appears to be promotional literature for the High Desert Investment Corporation. Ringbang (talk) 19:35, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge to parent community. Candleabracadabra (talk) 03:49, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Most subdivisions (housing estates) are not, I think, notable; and local coverage such as this and this suggests that this particular one is a failed development to boot. I suppose the failure could be mentioned in the Rio Rancho, New Mexico article, but little of the mostly anticipative content of this article would be appropriate. Deor (talk) 12:07, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:27, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—Individual subdivisions within a town or city are usually not notable, unless they pass the GNG (no notability is inherited from the larger town). This one is nowhere near meeting GNG. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 15:56, 6 September 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) 04:31, 14 September 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. —Darkwind (talk) 07:56, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of hospitals in Bursa Province

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

as per WP:NOTDIR. just a list of non notable entries. also nominating:

Delete all as per nom. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:37, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:52, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:52, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:52, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-- seems a shame to delete all these when there's clearly been some effort put into their creation. Do we not have other such lists of regional hospitals for other parts of the world? Is there a parent article where this content could be merged, like list of hospitals in Turkey. Lesion (talk) 14:01, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Lesion: List of hospitals in the United States (its child lists) seems to be at a similar level to the article here. I have no opinion on this AFD. Chris857 (talk) 17:19, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose In WikiProject Lists there are more than 10000 list articles (ignoring those which are not included in the project). List of hospitals is no less notable than much of those.Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 12:59, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 13:11, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The idea that any province of Turkey might not contain any notable hospitals is simply incredible, so such lists are perfectly acceptable. I also see no part of WP:NOTDIR that comes anywhere close to applying to these lists. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:55, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't see that WP:NOTDIR is violated in any way. It's a simple list of hostpitals without the usual earmarks of a directory such as address and contact information. Generally speaking, major hospitals are held to be notable, and I would expect that any given province of Turkey would contain notable hospitals. That we do not have articles on these hospitals is a reflection of the editor population of the English Wikipedia. -- Whpq (talk) 19:52, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

the Bursa and Balıkesir lists have no corresponding Turkish article. "major hospitals are held to be notable" the lists give no indication of what is notable and you're assuming these lists are full of notable hospitals. These lists should give guidance on notable hospitals instead of us presupposing they must be notable. Of course if you can demonstrate sources to prove notability of several hospitals in these lists I will happily withdraw the nomination. LibStar (talk) 06:55, 10 September 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) 04:16, 14 September 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. KTC (talk) 18:47, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gender and Mine Action Programme (GMAP)

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

No reliable sources given that mention the organization, none found via Google News (including the Swiss edition). Does not appear to be notable. Huon (talk) 22:33, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'd prefer to vote Keep as this is a worthy group and worthy cause. Unfortunately the rules of Wikipedia require sources independent of the topic that discuss the topic in depth (WP:GNG)) and the sources found are either connected to the topic, trivial mentions or things like this [46] (blog post by an intern) or this [47] (resource list). No in-depth profile of GMAP in a magazine or newspaper for example. Maybe WP:TOOSOON. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:08, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I'd prefer to vote Keep as this is a worthy group and doing remarkable stuff. --VI-007 (talk) 16:54, 12 September 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) 04:16, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable. Noteworthy yes, notable no. Caffeyw (talk) 14:16, 14 September 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. I would be happy to userfy if anyone wants to pick through it to find sourced, mergeable information. —Darkwind (talk) 07:58, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne Hoffman

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable stage magician; greatest claim to fame is things like being nominated by Princess Cruise Lines as "entertainer of the year" and occasionally appearances on syndicated shows. Orange Mike | Talk 23:34, 26 August 2013 (UTC) NOTE: This article was deleted once before, and recreated by User:Waynemagic, an account which is pretty obviously Hoffman himself. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:38, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Magic-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:41, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:41, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:41, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I feel that notability is established, although the references could definitely use some improvement. GSK ● ✉ ✓ 05:56, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A few short appearances, some shows at relatively minor venues, and some non-notable awards don't cut it. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:31, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. In terms of reliable source coverage, all I could come up with were a bunch of event listings and some reviews in college papers. Just doesn't seem like sufficient coverage to pass GNG.--Arxiloxos (talk) 05:05, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisting comment: Looking for some more energetic analysis and discussion. Other than the nomination, none of the comments here is particularly emphatic.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Orlady (talk) 21:41, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep His performances and accomplishments are sufficent to warrant inclusion. Candleabracadabra (talk) 23:02, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which accomplishments? Not winning a reality TV show is not enough, and the Princess Cruises award is just puffery. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:20, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (selectively) to Phenomenon (TV series) as non-winning reality TV contestant with only a smattering of generally low-level media coverage, almost all of which fails to meet WP:RS. There is some coverage of his reality TV appearance, but being non-top-five in a show that's not huge isn't enough for notability. Yahoo! Voices isn't a reliable source, at least based on the rather insulting WP article. Aside from that there's a local news story (WFMZ-TV in Allentown, PA). And there's PR fluff: Atlantic City Insiders seems tourist information/advertising rather than real news, and there's advertising puff from Princess Cruises and a few TV shows saying who they've got on. I'm just not seeing in-depth coverage in reliable sources independent from his reality TV appearance. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:18, 5 September 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) 04:14, 14 September 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. —Darkwind (talk) 07:59, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Moses Powell

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

This biography has no independent reliable sources, they're all from his organization. As for notability, he doesn't pass WP:MANOTE or WP:GNG. The style he created was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sanuces Ryu.Mdtemp (talk) 21:20, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:45, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:45, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:46, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There seem to be lots of sources on Google Books recognizing this individual as a leader ("legend") in his field. Candleabracadabra (talk) 23:06, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Although neither of the schools he founded are notable the individual can certainly be considered a pioneer in the field. It would help if secondary/reliable references were introduced into the article.Peter Rehse (talk) 11:28, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I looked at the books in the Google search done by Candleabracadabra. The Black Belt magazine listings are all in the ads section under tapes to buy. The other book mentions I checked were passing mentions, often in a list of names. I didn't see any significant reliable independent coverage of him that would allow him to pass WP:GNG. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 20:11, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WHat about this book source that has an entire section about him? And what about [books.google.com/books?isbn=0807050113 this] one noting he was the first African American to perform this craft in front of the UN? How common is that type of invitation? And what about sources such as [books.google.com/books?isbn=0275981533 this] one noting that he was a grandmaster and influential teacher? [books.google.com/books?isbn=0822381176 this] source and [books.google.com/books?isbn=1598842439 this] source are examples of the many books discussing his historical significance. Candleabracadabra (talk) 22:24, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would also note that some of the book sources such as [Martial Arts of the World: An Encyclopedia of History and ... - Page 628] are Encyclopedia's of Martial Arts. And here's another [Black Diaspora - Volume 19 - Page 60] [books.google.com/books?id=37EOAQAAMAAJ source] where this this individual is noted as being significant and influential. Candleabracadabra (talk) 22:32, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That "entire section" consists of 5 sentences: 1 says he taught a lot of students and 4 are about the non-notable art he founded (and 2 of those are about the name he made up). His influence was a student quoted as saying "he was the father I never had"--heartwarming, but not notable. Still seems to be passing mentions.Mdtemp (talk) 19:51, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

His being covered in an encyclopedia on martial arts established his significance. If the form he established isn't independently notable I have no oppostition to it being included in his article. That he influenced other notable persons also establishes his significance. Candleabracadabra (talk) 21:32, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would strongly encourage you to add some these references to the article. Papaursa (talk) 19:03, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While I agree that almost all of the references I looked at are arguably "passing mentions", the sheer number of them (and enough independent ones) seems enough to show he meets WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 19:03, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
comment - I am the writer of this article. I haven't put much time into it but there are a ton of sources on him. If you choose to delete the article can you please put in in userspace. [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] CrazyAces489 (talk) 20:10, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that when you create an article, you actually add sources to it. Relying on other editors to source your article strikes me as poor manners. Papaursa (talk) 19:49, 15 September 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) 04:14, 14 September 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) 06:33, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Philotheos: International Journal for Philosophy and Theology

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

This article recently passed a wp:PROD with no comment. Could someone verify that this article meets Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals)? It is not apparent to me that it does. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:09, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It is not actually true that the unprod happened without a comment, but it was off-wiki. Here is what the person who requested that it be restored after the prod wrote:
"I am neither the one who first have written this article, nor I have contributed to it, but I think that it should not be deleted. Philotheos is probably the only journal in which one can find scientists together who openly write on theology and philosophy from an Orthodox perspective. I wonder why you have deleted it. Maybe you were led to this decision, because it is not a journal written only in English. The fact that this journal is written in multiple languages, should be in favor of maintaining this article. As a contributor to this journal, I can assure you that there are excellent scientific articles in all the past volumes of Philotheos. Many professors from Germany, Russia, Greece, Serbia, Bulgaria, Italy, France, USA, etc. have contributed to Philotheos, and it would be a shame all this scientific work not to be mentioned in wikipedia. So, I suggest to allow this article to be restored, and if possible to be improved."

Of course, none of this addresses the criteria in WP:NJournals. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:37, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I managed to find the website of the journal (on the faculty website, thanks to Google Translate... :-) Unfortunately, the site is very uninformative, don't even see the name(s) of the editor(s) mentioned, let alone some information on abstracting and indexing. The journal is not in any Thomson Reuters database, but it might be in some religion- or philosophy-related ones (I am less familiar with those). So I haven't been able to find any indication of notability, but given that it has been around for over a decade, I'll wait for a moment before I !vote delete, to see if someone more familiar with this type of journals can come up with something. --Randykitty (talk) 17:45, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tending to ~~delete~~. I just did a GS search using "Philoteos" as query. Most hits are not related to this journal, those that are have not been cited. Does not appear to have had any significant impact (yet?). --Randykitty (talk) 17:47, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This journal is indexed in the ATLA Religion Database (serial ID record ATLA0001591584). ATLA seems to be a major database of religious journals, but I do not know if it is considered selective. It doesn't appear to be in Religious and Theological Abstracts. --Mark viking (talk) 21:22, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:36, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:36, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:43, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:43, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I used Google translator to give an English rendition of the Serbian website for this journal here [53] (per Randykitty??). Hopefully this is helpful, and I will try to review this English translation later. Also, I notice that the "ATLA Religion Database" is an EBSCO indexing service, so there may be some selectivity because of that, but I can't say for sure. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 14:21, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have asked for recommendations from WikiProject Religion. --Mark viking (talk) 12:12, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Google Scholar found that it is also indexed by the French refdoc.fr. I think it will be very hard for editors to determine if "The journal is considered by reliable sources to be influential in its subject area.", given that its subject area (Serbian Theology) is regionally limited. If it is published by the "Faculty of Orthodox Theology at the University of Belgrade", then I suppose only the Serbian Orthodox Church would be considered a more "reliable source" on this subject area. Unless we can find some faculty member at a university outside of Serbia that just by chance wrote a thesis on this subject, I think it will be hard to find any other discussion of the subject. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 06:46, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Refdoc is just a service that provides copies of articles published in as many academic journals as possible, so it is not very selective. And you're right, it's a rare journal that qualifies for inclusion under WP:GNG. However, to qualify under WP:NJournals, it suffices to be included in some major selective databases, which even for highly specialized journals like this one is definitely possible. --Randykitty (talk) 11:01, 11 September 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) 04:13, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The ATLA Religion Database is respectable enough, there must be some merit to the journal. Review of the ATLA Religion Database [54]: "Despite the few shortcomings noted above, the coverage of titles in religious and theological studies is unmatched by other databases; this is an indispensable tool for scholars and students doing research in religion. Summing Up: Highly recommended. Upper-level undergraduates and above.-A. Limpitlaw, Vanderbilt University" --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 17:25, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That doesn't sound as if it is very selective, though... --Randykitty (talk) 18:09, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the editors list their selection criteria here: [55], for whatever that's worth. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 21:00, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ATLA Religion Database editor selection criterion include the following points which seem sufficiently selective for a scientist like myself. --Dkriegls (talk to me!) 23:45, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As Peer-reviewed status of the journal and overall academic merit
Established and consistent publishing record
Format and content of the journal -- that is, preferred publications contain or consist primarily of research articles, bibliographies, and/or book reviews; ATLA RDB generally does not include current-awareness publications, newsletters, and the like, so these are typically removed from consideration --- Dkriegls 23:46, 17 September 2013‎ (UTC) (signature sdded by User:Steve Quinn }.[reply]

Keep per off wiki comment above, User:Atethnekos, and User:Dkriegls. Looking at the selection criteria for the ATLA Religion Database seems to indicate that it is highly selective, including the fact that it indexes only 550 journals. So this indexing service seems to be very picky.

In contrast, Science Citation Index Expanded indexes a 8,500 journals [56]. And, one description of the Science Citation Index [57] says that this database indexes 6,000 "key journals", and the Social Sciences Citation Index indexes 3000 "world leading social sciences journals" [58]. These databases are held in high regard and are also considered picky, but with 15 times, 10 times, and 5 times the number of indexed journals.

Furthermore, according to World Cat this journal is cataloged by the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts library, University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Arts library [59], two Swiss universities [60] , Harvard University, University of Notre Dame [61], as well as other reputable universities and institutions in the U.S. and Europe (on the following pages of the World Cat entry). For a seemingly small Slovenianm journal it seems to matter to some high quality institutions.

Also, to me, it seems to matter that this journal is also listed in the Library of Congress (USA). It is not likely that an unimportant Slovenian journal would find itself listed in the Library of Congress. This is based on my experience, when previously, I have come across some notable scientific journals that qualify for an article on Wikipedia but cannot be found in the Library of Congress. That experience notwithstanding, it seems that the Library of Congress must have some sort of selection criteria, albeit different from Thomson Reuters, or any piece of writng or media might find its way into that catalog. So, I guess my comment here is based on my editing experiences on Wikipedia. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 04:15, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep given the listing by ATLA. However, I disagree with most of Steve's reasoning above. ATLA only indexes journals on religion, whereas the Thomson Reuters databases mentioned cover all of (social) science. Those databases have no "religion" category, but I bet that at least 90% of those 550 journals in ATLA will not be in any Thomson Reuters database. The WorldCat links only confirm that a handful of university libraries hold this journal, which is to be expected and nothing out of the ordinary. (By the way, those links don't work for me, I think they depend on your ___location). Finally, I have noticed before that many major scientific journals are not in the Library of Congress, but even rather obscure journals in the fields of law or religion are almost always included. I think this reflects their acquisition policy. I don't think they have any selection criteria other than cataloging their holdings. Anyway, ATLA seems mildly selective in that it includes any serious journal in its field of interest. It appears to be the only database, though, which is why I go for a "weak keep" and not an outright "keep". Borderline. --Randykitty (talk) 08:47, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. On World Cat, try placing "Philotheos : international journal for philosophy and theology" into the search bar, as a search term. I am thinking you should get "Philotheos : international journal for philosophy and theology" with the first four listing. Then, notice the first three listings. One is for English, one is for Serbian, and one is for German (see just underneath the title). Each of these will have some different libraries that catalog this journal. Also, the catalog entries seem to be in English for most of these, which is helpful for me. Steve Quinn (talk) 22:38, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but it is marginal. Investigation by Atethnekos and Dkriegls has convinced me that ATLA is a well-respected index in the religion field and has some selection criteria; it can serve as a proxy for notability per WP:NJournals. That the journal isn't in Religious and Theological Abstracts gives me some pause, but one reputable indexing service is good enough. --Mark viking (talk) 23:11, 18 September 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. —Darkwind (talk) 08:01, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aruvikkuzhy Falls

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

unable to find RS to establish GNG. looks to me like the sole mention of this outside wikipedia is from a posting by "ecotourindia" on a forum website. No indication that this even exists. [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 05:45, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:47, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:47, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as possible hoax unless reliable sources can be produced, lickety-split. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:19, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Maybe someone from Wikipedia:WikiProject India can sort this, provide valuable assistance. Dloh cierekim 11:52, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lickitty-split? Perhaps we can await feedback from WP:India? Maybe we can let it run the full duration and I really would suggest that a search on Google will suggest it is not a hoax. Dloh cierekim 12:20, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep On the one hand, nominator tags for speedy deletion as promotional. On the other says no indication it even exists. I find a mention on Google books in a book about the Waterfalls of Keral after about 10 seconds of looking. At what is a promotional site for tourists, I find another mention of the falls, so I think it's safe to say they exist. There are other potential sources in English to sift through via G-hits, and that is just in English. As the falls are in India, it may be that more sourcing exists in another language. This is a geographical landmark and as such is notable if it exists. It would probably have been better to ask at WP:India for help with the article and then to seek deletion if that were unavailing. Dloh cierekim 12:17, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

addendum Gets a hit on Google Earth. Dloh cierekim 12:26, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The first link is published by "LLC books", and the book in question is listed as 46 pages. Looking at their other books on gbooks, it appears that they specialize in "books" that are merely lists of things like names. (for example). They do appear to have a couple of non-list books, but I don't get the sense that they do much in the way of editorial control or fact checking. We can go to RSN for additional opinions about this, and I think that might be useful anyway.

The other reference you use is a tourism website, and non-RS. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 17:43, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Books LLC, it is a Wikipedia mirror, so less than no-good. Chris857 (talk) 17:54, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lickety-split [62], [63]. —SpacemanSpiff 13:47, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The first link does not mention waterfalls at all.

The second link mentions "waterfalls", lowercase, non-proper-noun, so there is some mention that there are waterfalls there. This article is putatively about a specific waterfall, and there is another waterfall, presumably in the area, which shares a name (Aruvikkuzhi Waterfalls). Note that that waterfall is listed as "not to be confused with" and is also Capitalized, as per a Proper Noun. I do not believe the hindu.com article refers to either of these falls in particular, though it would be usable as a citation on a page about Aruvikkuzhi that mentioned that there were waterfalls there. I still don't think this is enough to satisfy GNG. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 17:47, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would stop digging now. —SpacemanSpiff 17:50, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by that. please elaborate, on my talk page if necessary. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 18:11, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think geographic features need meet the GNG. The problems are two fold- is this an alternate spelling? Can sourcing be found? I've asked WP:India to do the lifting on sourcing. We'll know more if they can establish that it is not a misspelling and maybe they can find good sourcing for it. PS, one of those links refers to the other similarly named falls that this might be. That's the trouble with translating Indian languages into an overlaid English official language. Dloh cierekim 20:59, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The two sources I've listed here refer to this falls, while the two that I've listed at the other AfD, refer to that falls. There are of course multiple transliteration spelling variations, both official and unofficial; to complicate matters, the name is just a descriptive, making it all too common. —SpacemanSpiff 06:50, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Given the similarities and difficulty in distinguishing them, is there a possibility in your mind of a merge? keeping multiple articles with such thin content and just a couple of spelling variations seems silly to me, and I am still not convinced they are notable, personally. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 07:09, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Hi! The website of Thottappuzhassery panchayat (on which it is situated) says about it: "ഈ ഗ്രാമത്തിലെ മറ്റൊരു മനോഹര സ്ഥലമാണ് “അരുവിക്കുഴി”. വളരെ ആഴത്തിലേക്ക് ചിന്നിച്ചിതറി ചാടുന്ന ഇവിടുത്തെ വെള്ളച്ചാട്ടം കണ്ണിനും കാതിനും കുളിര്‍മ്മ ഏകുന്നു"[64](Malayalam) (Translation: Another beautiful place in this village is "Aruvikkuzhi(/y)". The waterfall in here, which shatters and jumps into the deep, gives a cooling effect to the eyes and ears). Hence this is definitely not a hoax and The Hindu coverages must be referring to this waterfall itself.[65] But, the distance between these two waterfalls (using Google Maps) is less than 30 km.
Regarding the spelling, keralatourism.org uses Aruvikkuzhi for both the waterfalls.[66][67] (not sure how reliable it is, though). This government letter uses 'Aruvikkuzhi waterfalls' for the waterfall at Kottayam. Thanks.···Vanischenu^「m/_Talk」 15:01, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Note that four other Wikipedias (Urdu, Farsi, Tochiki [?], and one other, mzn) have articles on this falls; that doesn't guarantee its existence, but it makes it more likely. None of them have any sourcing except for this page. However, since at least Urdu's spoken in India (and perhaps Tochiki and the other one; never heard of them, so I don't know), these falls might have a native name with a standard spelling, unlike the non-native name subject to multiple transliterations such as "Aruvikkuzhy" or "Aruvikkuzhi". Perhaps assistance could be requested of people who speak one or more of those languages, since unfortunately SpacemanSpiff's impressive array of languages doesn't include any of them. Nyttend (talk) 03:16, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't exactly look like an WP:RS to me. Just sayin. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 04:24, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, I know that. My point was completely different. Nyttend (talk) 12:13, 4 September 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, -- Trevj (talk) 12:06, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Nyttend:Unfortunately, all of those articles in other four languages were created by importing bots (mzn by Amolbot and the other three by DarafshBot).···Vanischenu^「m/_Talk」 14:42, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The website of Deepika newspaper (Malayalam) has a local report on Pathanamthitta's "Tourism Projects are sleeping in files"[68]. The Aruvikkuzhy(/i) waterfall is discussed in it with importance. It explicitly states that the DTPC building was built near this waterfall (and that this waterfall is at Thottappuzhassery Panchayath, Kozhencherry, Pathanamthitta.)···Vanischenu^「m/_Talk」 13:43, 13 September 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) 04:04, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just so that everyone is aware, there are three articles in English from The Hindu about this waterfalls already included in the article and one Malayalam article from the village panchayat and one Malayalam article from Deepika (newspaper) listed here on the AfD. —SpacemanSpiff 06:05, 22 September 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. —Darkwind (talk) 08:02, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shelley Rubin

AfDs for this article:

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

Still no notable references since 2009; uses her organization website as reference. As a leader of the JDL, she is already discussed on that organizations page. Any information here worth salvaging can be merged into the JDL article. Jason from nyc (talk) 01:54, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete I found quite a few mentions, but mostly in passing and mostly on non-notable blogs. This one looks reliable:

http://www.jewishjournal.com/tomstopics/item/violent_end_for_jdl_leaders_ari_rubins_death_ruled_suicide_201208151 And there may be others, but there doesn't appear to be enough for an article at this point. Nwlaw63 (talk) 02:14, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Easily meets GNG. Many RS refs, referring to many different facts in her background, notable among them being her lawsuit (which seems to be in a personal capacity, and not as a JDL official) -- and many of them after 2009, which if a wp:before search is done should be easily found ... we focus on what references exist in real life, and not just what happens to be in the article, at AfD.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:15, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article could use updating and freshening, but the consensus from 2009 still stands up. The reliable and verifiable sources about her support the claim of notability. Alansohn (talk) 03:25, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:Meets WP:GNG, however needs much improvement. ///EuroCarGT 03:28, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment None of the sources given do more than mention the article subject in passing. It's not enough to be mentioned in a newspaper - significant coverage should consist of substantive discussion of the article subject, not a brief mention in relation to a larger issue. Nwlaw63 (talk) 03:25, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. I think we would all agree that if the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources (such as the ones here, spanning over three decades) may be combined to demonstrate notability. Furthermore, the suggestion by nom that there are no notable references since 2009 is simply not correct; there are a number of later articles about Rubin vs. City of Lancaster ... and her role in that case, in which she is lead plaintiff, is more than trivial or passing. Similarly, the suggestion in the nomination that notable RS coverage of her is only with regard to the JDL is not correct, as coverage with regard to that case demonstrates.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:52, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was thinking along the lines of Nwlaw63. There is no article about her or with a section that gives us her bio and background. I saw the articles that mention her in passing and that usually isn't enough. That's why I proposed a "delete and merge." The "Lancaster City Council Prayer" lawsuit is a good example why the merge won't work. It's an important and well-covered story. It may go to the supreme court. And requires a page of its own. If the story grows, I suspect (via WP:CRYSTALBALL) that we'll have a story on Mrs. Rubin. I've generally seen bios deleted especially when there is an article about the subject's organization but none that covers the person. In any case, the article is much improved. Jason from nyc (talk) 12:31, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your thoughts. Don't you agree that if the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability?--Epeefleche (talk) 16:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure. I was under the impression that we need a good source on Rubin herself. If I'm wrong and a distributed synthesis can substitute, the article is informative. If I came across it today I wouldn't be motivated to do an AfD. Jason from nyc (talk) 00:15, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for being open to thinking about it. You may find this informative -- wp:BASIC.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:05, 6 September 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) 04:00, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per all the "keeps" above and since this article survived an AfD in 2009 and has not only withstood the test of time, but has retained more than enough WP:RS that are clearly WP:V it is therefore quite surprising that the nominator wants to axe it for very flimsy reasons. IZAK (talk) 10:08, 22 September 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) 06:29, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Internet Movie Firearms Database

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

Wiki which identifies guns used in movie. Passing mentions in a few news articles. Fails WP:GNG. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:44, 14 September 2013 (UTC) Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:44, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:08, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:08, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:08, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:08, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:08, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep Field & Stream is a reliable source which covers the subject in detail. [69] The Guardian only gives passing mention towards it. Something Awful has one of their editors reviewing it. [70] The Los Angeles Times has a full article about it. [71] Dream Focus 08:14, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dream Focus. I've seen more WP:RSes (as I frequent the site and they sometimes post about articles about themselves) but I can't find them as Google News hates me. Ansh6 6 6 09:51, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On the right side side of their main page [72] they list "in the news". I didn't notice that before. I just did a regular Google search and looked through anything that seemed like a reliable site until I found a few good ones and then stopped looking for any more. Dream Focus 15:27, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - We've been through this before and the article has been rebuilt into a form that is far better than many lesser articles that do not receive the kind of scrutiny that anything firearm related does. Furthermore, I've lost track of the number of tv shows that reference the site as their "go to source" for all things movie gun related. If the entertainment industry uses it so widely, its notable. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 03:31, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That isn't what makes something notable on WP. And this has absolutely nothing to do with the subject being gun-related. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:41, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It also worth noting that if you Google just about any movie title with the word 'guns' or 'firearms' this is the first site that comes up. My point being is indexed very highly by Google. Seems to me that makes it worth mentioning. It should also be noted that this really is an widely used industry tool. --Zackmann08 (talk) 06:05, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Google position is not how we judge notability. By the way, I have added the "connected contributor" template to the article's talk page, since you state that you are "the Chief of Operations at IMFDB". You should probably read WP:COI again. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:59, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per coverage in independent reliable sources and per shown WP:USEBYOTHERS. Quite nice that a Wiki is being so widely accepted. Only makes sense that we speak about it here as well. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 18:29, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Appears to be widely used by the industry. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:20, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sourcing found by Dream Focus (I suspect there's more given I've seen more than a few passing mentioned to it lately), but please make sure those sources identified get into the article ASAP, as the current reflist is woefully failing GNG. --MASEM (t) 16:07, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, no prejudice against later creation of a redirect.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:29, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alien Temperor

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

This character does not establish notability independent of Ultraman Taro through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of overly in-depth plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 02:50, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:44, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:44, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:44, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to Ultra Monsters. You could have probably just boldly redirected this article yourself: it is unsourced, in-universe, and lacks notability. I don't see anyone contesting that, as I can't find any reliable sources. I don't much care either way whether it's deleted or redirected, but redirects are cheap. I guess someone might search for it, as it shows up more than once. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:10, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete part of a whole slew of non-notable characters.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:58, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 06:26, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Hopkins (chess player)

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

Appears to be a WP:HOAX. The creator listed two RS references (Eales, p. 185-186 and Sunnucks, p.310), but Hopkins is not mentioned on those pages -- in fact, the name is not mentioned anywhere in those books. Or any other chess encyclopedia that I checked. Online and WorldCat searches found no evidence of the existence of the other 4 reference titles nor their authors. They appear to be fake. The creator's history of changes to names and dates in the article, and odd entries like these quotes suggests the article is a joke. (Note: the companion Ruy Lopez, Hopkins Gambit article also lists references which are unfounded -- but there may be an actual footnote about it at C77 in the ECO. So I am not yet listing that article for deletion as a hoax until that can be checked, although, at best, it's probably non-notable.) — CactusWriter ^(talk) 01:40, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Related article listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruy Lopez, Hopkins Gambit. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 00:12, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What's not to believe?. But, but, but ... How could it not be true?! There's even a photo of the subject's signature! (The edit sum by the article author when adding that photo image: "signa turd" [73].) Let's see we have: 1) Hopkins owned George Washington's chessboard, 2) Hopkins is believed to have played Theodore Roosevelt a game of chess, 3) Hopkins was observed as if walking on water and no one to this day knows the secret how he did so, and 4) Hopkins amassed a financial fortune which is now a hidden [presumably buried] treasure, with only a family member having the secret code giving instructions to finding it. And I love these inconsistencies: 1) first he was a "Catholic priest", then a "Baptist minister", 2) first he was "shot twice in the left leg", then "shot in both legs", 3) first he "tripped" on his bathtub to his death, then he was "discovered" dead in the bathtub. The author has even taken care to wrap the subject in complete mystique, with hearsay accounts of his existence only, and finally even taking measures to get rid of the body, even to the extent of "cremating [his] ashes" [74].
IMO the author-editor should be banned from WP, or at a minimum indefinitely blocked. (Can someone please explain why that wouldn't be warranted and appropriate? I know that isn't the venue here, but hey! Thanks.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:26, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
ECO Vol C (2nd ed., 1981) has no mention of "Hopkins" and only this footnote (C77, p. 356):
5.c4?! Bc5 6.Nc3 0-0 7.0-0 d6 8.Bxc6 bxc6 9.d4 exd4 10.Nxd4 Bd7 =/+ Radkevič–Sumilin, SSSR 1937
ECO Vol C (3rd ed., 1997) dropped that line and 5.c4 doesn't show. Couldn't check 1st ed. ECO Vol C (I think I discarded that book since 2nd ed. dwarfed it). I checked some other books and couldn't find 5.c4 in any, including: The Ruy Lopez, Leonard Barden (1963, 1975 Pergamon reprint); MCO-12; BCO (1st ed., 1982); Oxford Companion (1st ed., 1987); Theory and Practice, Horowitz; The Complete Book of Gambits, Keene (1992). Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 23:04, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that research, Ihardlythinkso. Your findings confirm what I also found with the Oxford Companion -- and your check of the Encyclopaedia of Chess Openings seals the deal. I will be listing Ruy Lopez, Hopkins Gambit for AFD as well. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 17:14, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The first edition of ECO has the same note as the second edition. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 01:47, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as a hoax. I've checked Shang2's contributions (fortunately not extensive outside of this article). Those were minor vandalisms that have been reverted. It's quite likely that this person morphed into User:Shangmeister, but the latter's edits appear (at first glance anyway) to be unobjectionable. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:17, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly delete. One notices Shang2's first edit (well, edits) on the Hopkins Gambit page, made roughly 4 months after it's conception. It was quickly reverted as vandalism. Shang2's other edits on the Gambit were simply to link the Richard Hopkins page (which he created) to the opening. Borjon22 (talk) 05:43, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a hoax. Brittle heaven (talk) 16:29, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 01:47, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per nominator. Should be listed at WP:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia. Toccata quarta (talk) 05:04, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator Cobblet (talk) 06:17, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As if any further evidence was required at this point, there's no evidence that the Sturbgon Weekly has ever existed, or, indeed, any place named Sturbgon to have a weekly newspaper. And other than the two actual sources (whose use here is a misrepresentation), WorldCat has no entry for any of the authors or works put forth as sources here. Unequivocal hoax. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:52, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:08, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Poetic Essay

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

Seems to be an article by an SPA to promote a concept from Denny Januar Ali. No indication of notability. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:54, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:21, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:21, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:21, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like a walled garden. Has not established notability beyond the circle of people who invented it. Needs more time to see if the genre and concept becomes notable as reported in multiple reliable sources, which are intellectually independent of those pioneering writers and publishers. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 00:55, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The term "poetic essay" has been in use at least as far back as the 4th century, and it appears to generally refer to an essay that is considered 'poetic' and nothing more ([75], [76], [77], [78]). The reliable sources that I found relate to this meaning, and not some new form of poetry invented in the last few years. --Michig (talk) 07:00, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well in fairness, there are sources that show the genre (if it can be called) does exist, invented by the poet Denny JA in Indonesia recently. [79]"That’s what makes the idea he labels Poetic Essay important in the development of our poetry." If the phrase was used earlier in a different context shouldn't matter to determining this use of the phrase which has a specific meaning. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 14:45, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the point is, the reliable sources that exist referring to "poetic essay" are not referring to this topic. It's the lack of reliable sources showing that this topic has encyclopedic relevance which indicate that we shouldn't have an article here. --Michig (talk) 15:01, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:57, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Slender: Space

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

PROD declined, so AFD. No reliable sources available besides possible Bloody Disgusting; although CNET is a reliable source, the link was to a download page, which doesn't assert notability. Zappa O Mati 00:38, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:19, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I remember seeing this for PROD and seconding it back then. The problem here is that the coverage is incredibly light. The only true reliable source is the BD link, which is so small of an article that it could almost be considered trivial. CNET might have been usable, but it was a download link. Really, all of the links added were download links of one sort or another. I think one of them was the equivalent of a nn blog post that showed the trailer, but that was about it. Since they were pretty much just DL, I removed them from the article since that's considered to be somewhat inappropriate to link to in general. I'd recommend against redirecting this to the articles for either Slender: The Eight Pages or Slender Man. This wasn't made by the same crew that made STEP, and there are more than a few Slender Man related games and other things that have gotten brief mentions here and there in reliable sources. Wikipedia isn't meant to be an extensive list of every Slender Man item that has gotten slight notice from a reliable source- we can and should only cover the ones that have received enough coverage to merit an article or at least just enough to where they barely fail notability guidelines. If we had at least one good in-depth source along with the borderline trivial BD mention, I'd probably say maybe a mention on the main article for Slendy, but the coverage just isn't here. That said, if anyone wanted to userfy a copy of the article then I have no problem with that. I'd just recommend that they get rid of the easter egg section, as it's unsourced and reads a bit more like something you'd find on a fansite or a blog. The rest of it is fine enough. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:21, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant coverage or other evidence of encyclopedic relevance found. --Michig (talk) 06:51, 21 September 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 Samina Baig. There's enough consensus for the redirect, which would be the expect close for an article like this DGG ( talk ) 23:42, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mirza Ali (Mountaineer)

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

No evidence that this is a notable mountaineer. Reference provided shows that Samina Baig has notability as the first Pakistani woman to scale Mount Everest but Mirza Ali's achievement as "the third and youngest Pakistani male" is not. The article says that 35 foreigners and 29 Nepalese Sherpas reached the peak in this single climb. Climbing Mt Everest is not a particularly notable thing in 2013. Fails via WP:N and probably WP:BLP1E. Tassedethe (talk) 00:19, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:18, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:19, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Samina Baig There's plenty of coverage about his sister on the same expedition. Mirza did not even make it to the summit, so claiming he climbed Mount Everest is misleading.204.126.132.231 (talk) 19:42, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Samina Baig. I didn't find much coverage outside of the Everest climb, and that generally focuses on his sister. A redirect seems reasonable. --Michig (talk) 06:47, 21 September 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.

[1] "Tax Controversy Among the Low-Income Population". Tax Policy Center. 1999-03-17. Retrieved 2013-09-17.

[1]