Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 July 8

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 7 July	9 July >

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 delete. L Faraone 23:57, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

George McConnell Davison

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

The page is WP:Self published source, according to at least two users besides me, on the talk page. It is being used as an advertisement to portray him and his company with what the court has not allowed them. See court halts bogus claims and see former version of Davison Design & Development (before my latest edits) and compare with current one. פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 00:48, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~{{agree|Delete page}}~~ - as stated above פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 00:16, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: AfD nomination implies deletion—no need for a separate bullet. czar · · 04:01, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it a little disingenuous to be agreeing with yourself? GDallimore (Talk) 01:15, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Davison Design & Development. It's pretty borderline as there are some good sources in the article, but they really only talk about Davison in connection with his company and not as an individual. Note that the nominator revisits this group of pages at intervals and attempts to push a thoroughly negative (although largely deserved!) POV. I've taken a firm position now and in the past and tried to maintain a sense of balance, but anyone who see this nomination and wants to have a go at further balancing these articles as part of a delete/merge discussion is welcome to. GDallimore (Talk) 01:15, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As the article's creator, I disagree with the proposed deletion, and I disagree that the article is "self-promotion"--any more than any biography of a living person is self-promotion. Per the procedures for objecting to a proposed deletion I will remove the "proposed deletion" tag from the article. Here and on the Davison article's Talk page, I offer my reasoning for keeping the biography as its own page, according to the Wikipedia Notability guidelines for People: 1) Davison is "worthy of notice" as founder and CEO of an American business with 250 employees; 2) he meets the basic criteria of being the subject of multiple published, independent sources (media), including a book about inventors; as additional criteria, he has made a recognized contribution that is part of the record of his industry as a) a patent-holder of at least eight patents, and b) an invited member of the Popular Mechanics "Brain Trust" roundtable; and 3) as a local Pittsburgh philanthropist. The article was also reviewed and accepted per the Wikipedia procedures for article creation and submission. --Christi212Cassidy (talk) 15:30, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

comment As the creator of the article, please would you explain (a) where any of the above is part of the notability guidelines (except for being the subject of multiple sources) and (b) which of the independent sources give him, rather than his business, substantial coverge. That it came through "Articles for creation" is not a valid reason for keeping. Vague generalisations about article content contribute nothing to a discussion - try to address the notability guidelines specifically. GDallimore (Talk) 16:05, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

comment As the creator of the article who believes the article should not be deleted, I am trying to address the notability guidelines specifically. I will do so again.

Per the Wikipedia guidelines for notability, people, I offer these specifics, referencing the original text of the notability guidelines, in defense of keeping and not deleting this article about George McConnell Davison:

Davison is "worthy of notice" as founder and CEO of an American business with 250 employees and as the designer of Inventionland. From the first paragraph of the notability article: "For Wikipedia:Notability (people), the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be "worthy of notice" – that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded"[1] within Wikipedia as a written account of that person's life. "Notable" in the sense of being "famous" or "popular" – although not irrelevant – is secondary."
As acknowledged, Davison meets the basic criteria of being the subject of multiple published, independent sources (media), including a book about inventors. From the "basic criteria": "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published[3] secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,[4] and independent of the subject.[5]"
As additional criteria, he has made a recognized contribution that is part of the record of his industry as a) a patent-holder of at least eight patents, each patent in his own name held alone or jointly with others, and b) an invited member of the Popular Mechanics "Brain Trust" roundtable. From "additional criteria": "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field.[7]"
Davison is a recognized local Pittsburgh philanthropist, which also makes him "worthy of notice."
In addition, I would point to the fact he was named in an FTC lawsuit that arguably changed the invention promotion industry is also "worthy of notice."

To answer the question of "which of the independent sources give him, rather than his business, substantial coverage," here are several sources:

“Make Sure You Aren’t the Only One Who Thinks It’s a Good Idea: Davison’s Volcanic Popcorn Maker,” Edison’s Concrete Piano: Flying Tanks, Six-Nippled Sheep, Walk-on-Water Shoes, and 12 Other Flops from Great Inventors by Judy Wearing (ECW Press, 2009) http://www.concretepiano.com/davison%20sample.pdf
"The World of Tomorrow," Popular Mechanics, December, 2012, pp. 75-77.
"Inventor George Davison Tells Parents Why They Should Encourage Their Kids to Invent," The Staten Island Family, October 2, 2012. http://www.thestatenislandfamily.com/inventor-george-m-davison-tells-parents-why-they-should-encourage-their-kids-to-invent/
"Creative Genius," by J. Michael Krivyanski, Entrepreneur, January 1, 2008. http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/187596. This short article does, I believe, point to Davison's leadership/management style and innovation with the development of Inventionland.

Christi212Cassidy (talk) 18:22, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Edison’s Concrete Piano" appear reliable and substantial. "The World of Tomorrow" is cited as being an op-ed piece BY Davison, not being about Davison. The Staten Island Family is a blog, not reliable. "Creative Genius" is a three paragraph piece about his company. In short, we have one suitable source. GDallimore (Talk) 20:43, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Source Information

Thank you for acknowledging Davison's inclusion in Edison's Concrete Piano, and for the opportunity to dig deeper into my sources. One by one, here are clarifications and arguments for maintaining this article about George McConnell Davison:

"Into the Future: How PopMech Predicted the Next 110 Years" by Popular Mechanics Editor-in-Chief Jim Meigs, December 2012. ^[1]. A description of the "PM Brain Trust," methodology and reasoning behind the special "Into the Future" issue of Popular Mechanics. Meigs introduces the 22 members of the brain trust, who include Esther Dyson; John Maeda, the president of the Rhode Island School of Design; Annalee Newitz, the editor-in-chief of io9; and other academics, entrepreneurs and scientists who formed their "team of experts." This citation has been added to the "Industry Participation" section of the article George McConnell Davison.
The Staten Island Family is a blog written by Melissa Chapman, a professional "mom" and former "Kids in the City" columnist for the Staten Island Advance from 2007 - 2011.^[2] The blog is part of the Lifetime (TV network) "Lifetime Moms" blog network; she has appeared as an expert on local media, including Fox & Friends TV show. This blog is not self-published; the article featuring George Davison maintained a neutral point of view and addressed the blog writer's audience. From Wikipedia's Verifiability page: "Several newspapers, magazines, and other news organizations host columns on their web sites that they call blogs. These may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals, but use them with caution because the blog may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process.[7]"
I respectfully disagree with you about "Creative Genius," the Entrepreneur magazine article by J. Michael Krivyanski. As I mentioned earlier, this is a short piece that points to Davison as a creative manager and leader, as well as the impetus behind Inventionland. Entrepreneur magazine, with a circulation over 600,000, is about entrepreneurs, people who have formed their own companies, and small-business management. George Davison is an entrepreneur who founded his own company. This article is about Davison as a manager and leader. Quote from the article to support my assertion: "George M. Davison, founder of the Pittsburgh-area product design company, created Inventionland to get his employees out of their cubicles and into a place that inspires creativity."^[3]
The subject of the article holds eight patents in his own name, solely or jointly, thus warranting the title of inventor as well as CEO and founder of his company.

Christi212Cassidy (talk) 00:38, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Touting someone as local is essentially stating that someone fails WP:GNG. He may be an entreprenuer, and creative, and a genius, and a really nice guy, but I can't see how he's anything more than a run of the mill businessman. Bearian (talk) 21:53, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I am also highly doubtful of the veracity of any of the claims in the article about the subject, based on this FTC decision. He might be a very bad guy, but that does not make him notable either. Bearian (talk) 22:00, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

comment As I was directed above by GDallimore: "Vague generalisations about article content contribute nothing to a discussion - try to address the notability guidelines specifically." Christi212Cassidy (talk) 18:45, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

comment With the sources and notes above, the "local" notwithstanding, I believe the article George McConnell Davison meets Wikipedia's notability standards for people. Christi212Cassidy (talk) 18:45, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge - A quick sniff test definitely raises red flags and concerns relating to WP:SELFPROMOTION, WP:VANITY, WP:ADVERT. As a sidenote, it's funny that Wikipedia:Notability (people) doesn't mention what makes business people notable. Agree with GDallimore's assessment that "they really only talk about Davison in connection with his company and not as an individual". Subject does not appear notable outside his involvement with the company. NickCT (talk) 14:30, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I too tend to agree with GDallimore's statement about the sources mostly writing about the company, not him. The WP:GNG is probably not met here, and when one takes into account the red flag issues raised by NickCT above, even if the first bar of GNG is reached here, it also states "Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article." I think that is the consensus of those who don't have a personal interest in the article. -Wine Guy~Talk 21:56, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. L Faraone 23:58, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cary Alexander Kazemi

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

Non-notable actor; has played a handful of minor roles in non-notable films. Possibly vanity/promotion article. There are five links in the references section; two are dead, one does not mention the article subject, and one is IMDB. Holdek (talk) 22:05, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 8 July 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, Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 05:00, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Let's look at WP:NACTOR shall we: "...significant roles in multiple notable films..." NO; "...large fan base or a significant "cult" following", NO; "...unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment," very much NO. My only question is: How did this article survive for 3 years? -Wine Guy~Talk 22:07, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete violates pretty much every guideline we got: general, specific, BLP... p b p 22:13, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirected to ladder; no proposal to delete by nominator or participants. (Non-admin closure). Ansh666 06:54, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ladder leveling

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

Propose redirecting to ladder Andrew³²⁷ 21:13, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to ladder. This is just original research in an unencyclopedic tone. Lugia2453 (talk) 23:20, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Keep !vote by nominator indicates withdrawn nomination, no non-Keep !votes. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:23, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Spartak Makovsky

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

It is not clear to me that the subject meets the notability requirements here. If a source could be found to confirm that he was indeed a Hero of the Soviet Union, then I believe the page should be kept. I have tried and failed to find such a source; I don't read Russian. I've had no luck persuading the creator of the article that it needs reliable sources. The article was at its creation a near-complete copyvio from Celebrities, a source I have removed as obviously unreliable. I'd appreciate the advice of others on both the notability and the copyright aspects. Thank you, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:55, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read my quote from that source yet? If not, please do. Its on the articles talk page.--Mishae (talk) 22:35, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kazakhstan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've added two reliable sources for the Hero of the Soviet Union. In addition, this indicates other coverage available in libraries. This indicates that a significant portion of a Russian documentary film was devoted to him. Likewise this one. I have removed the copyvio which was left in the article as hidden text. This is not allowed either. However, the previous version of the article which was copy-pasted is available in this version. Voceditenore (talk) 06:44, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More sources: Lengthy article, "Сражался, как Спартак" (Fought like Spartacus), in Казахстанская правда (Kazakhstanskaya Pravda), a major newspaper in Kazakhstan. Voceditenore (talk) 07:06, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (as nominator), following the clean-up by Voceditenore, for which many thanks. OK, I don't see any reference to "Hero of the Soviet Union" in the Google Books search linked above (which I had also tried before listing here, of course); don't get any snippet that mentions him from Sons Take Over; and can't read, or indeed even persuade Google to translate, the Kazakh news page. But I assume that someone can, which is all that matters. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:44, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the link to the relevant text of the snippet. As for the article from the Kazakh National Information Agency, try this link to the Google translation. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 08:54, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All good, thanks again. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:04, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - There is clearly a basic consensus, even with the main contributor that the page should be deleted because subject lacks notability, its content has been userfied. (Non admin closure) Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 05:05, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neil Solondz

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

Non-notable sportscaster lacking ghits and Gnews of substance. References are mostly primary in nature. Appears to fail WP:BIO. reddogsix (talk) 20:54, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will disagree; Even you delete it, I will still find a way to improve it. WisconsinBoyClevelandRocks228844 (talk) 23:38, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable. Hairhorn (talk) 23:44, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Since I don't like having articles deleted, if this is the case, I would support a merge or a redirect to List of Tampa Bay Rays broadcasters; otherwise I will recreate it, this time in my sandbox. Solondz replaced Rich Herrera as the radio host of the Tampa Bay Rays Radio Network. You have other Tampa radio hosts as Jack Harris who is the radio host for the Buccaneers Radio Network. WisconsinBoyClevelandRocks228844 (talk) 16:59, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject lacks sufficient coverage -- fails WP:GNG Article's creator, WisconsinBoy (formerly Ashbeckjonathan), has created dozens of similar articles, all relatively obscure sports broadcasters, many of which deleted for clear lack of notability. Levdr1lp / talk 02:11, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I moved the information of Solondz into my sandbox; I'll probably let it slide for now. WisconsinBoyClevelandRocks228844 (talk) 14:42, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus, not your own personal preference ("I'll let it slide"), will determine whether or not to delete this article. Should it be deleted, it would not be appropriate for you to copy the deleted content to your sandbox. WP:UP#COPIES Levdr1lp / talk 17:15, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Per overwhelming consensus. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:49, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of people with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder

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

Actual topic of article appears to be "Celebrities with ADHD" per the content. Violation of WP:BLP all over the place, using highly unreliable gossip/tabloid sources. None of those covered are notable due to their purported ADHD status. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:04, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support deletion as trivia. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:10, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, irretrievably problematic WP:BLP issues, "diagnosed" is a serious overstatement per the sourcing of most of the entries, and these individuals are not famous for having ADHD. Zad68 20:26, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete BLP issue. I'm pretty sure no one wants to be known by whether or not they have ADHD, regardless of whether or not it is true. Indeed unreliable sources used. It is not notable if they have ADHD or not. These people have done things that are a much bigger deal, so to speak, then having ADHD. CSD G10 may apply as well. kikichugirl (talk) 20:36, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Massive BLP headache, speculative at best, pointless categorization since there's no indication whatsoever that having a disease like this is notable, and there is no proof that suffering from it is a notable part of the person's life. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:11, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Isn't this what categories are for? Gamaliel (talk) 21:21, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as poorly sourced trivia. And in response to Gamaliel above, no this isn't what categories are for - WP:BLP policy is clear that contentious material about people needs to be relevant and properly sourced. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:45, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how you read my comment as advocating against proper sourcing. Gamaliel (talk) 21:50, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Medical conditions are not properly diagnosable in the media. Nor do I support a category for such a criterion. Collect (talk) 22:03, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As poorly sourced trivia and potentially defamatory depending on whether or not a celebrity wants to let the people know that they suffer from ADHD. In addition, it's even worse for someone who doesn't have ADHD but is put on that list thanks to faulty information. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 22:59, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
propose speedy snow close, as it also has blp issues (g10) Gaijin42 (talk) 23:04, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:CSD#G10 does not apply here, as this is neither an attack page nor unsourced. postdlf (talk) 00:56, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I oppose a snow or speedy close on this. I'd like to see this left open for the chance of opposing viewpoints. I'm on the fence myself currently... postdlf (talk) 00:13, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I support a snow or speedy close; this page is horribly sourced and therefore full of BLP violations. I can't think of any "opposing viewpoint" that would be given precedence over WP:BLP. Joefromrandb (talk) 05:27, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per all of the above, particularly BLP, which means delete immediately. Joefromrandb (talk) 05:30, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above - I second (well, like tenth, but you know what I mean) BLP concerns. Ansh666 06:50, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong and speedy delete - per all the above. ukexpat (talk) 13:22, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Now please as per above. I'm involved or I'd close this. Dougweller (talk) 14:36, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:47, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kensington Heights, Buffalo, New York

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

Non-notable district. I could not find any reliable sources to establish any notability. Tinton5 (talk) 02:22, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:39, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added two book references. I am unclear whether the neighborhood is the same as the housing project by the same name. The Geographic Names Information System does not have an entry for this place. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:39, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 05:08, 1 July 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, Dusti^*poke* 19:27, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by User:Jimfbleak (Non-admin closure). Ansh666 06:55, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Say Ahh: A Film About Fighting The World’s Largest Cavity (the one in our healthcare system)

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

Non-notable documentary. Possible conflict of interest: article creator is SayAhh (talk · contribs). Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 19:05, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per A7 and G11. Non-notable, written like an advertisement. Possible NPOV issue. kikichugirl (talk) 19:15, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A7 doesn't apply to films, but G11 is certainly appropriate. —teb728 t c 19:52, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)A7 doesn't cover films but you're right about G11. -- Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 19:53, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, speedy or not doesn't matter, it's promotional work on a film whose notability has not yet been established. And I just blocked the creator. Daniel Case (talk) 20:30, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Clearly a self-promotional article about a non-notable film, and a copyright violation of the movie's own webpage to boot. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:41, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A7 - self promotional, non notable Dusti^*poke* 21:50, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - per the above. In addition, maybe we should expand A7 to include film? öBrambleberry of RiverClan 23:02, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Self promotional piece. MarnetteD | Talk 23:38, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete for failing to meet WP:NF. This film premiered on June 13, 2013 but has not received coverage, analysis, or coverage in any reliable sources. IF IT EVER DOES, then issues with tone might be addressable. Until then, this fails inclusion criteria. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.}

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 20:53, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vortex Flash Hider

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

Promotional material without encyclopaedic value. The article is nothing but an ad for the Vortex Flash Hider from Smith Enterprises. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 18:08, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ as nominator. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 10:04, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: AfD nomination implies deletion—no need for a separate bullet. czar · · 18:17, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is a notable flash suppressor design and is part of the US and Candanian Military Inventories.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 18:44, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: FYI Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ is the creator of the article as well as a number of other mostly promotional articles about Smith Enterprises, articles that might also be possible candidates for deletion. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 18:51, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I am the coordinator of the firearms project and was improving articles about muzzle devices including sound suppressors, flash suppressors and their manufacturers. My goal is to improve the firearms resources of the encyclopedia. I do not think any of what I have written is promotional.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 18:56, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to Smith page per WP:PRODUCT Gaijin42 (talk) 19:30, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to be sufficient coverage in third party publications to pass GNG. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:43, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A notable device per publications in multiple RS. My very best wishes (talk) 02:47, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep . Well referenced and not promotional. Meets GNG. (Disclaimer: I came here via a discussion at AN/I). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:15, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep... This item has significant historical value, current military use, and is not promotional. RoundPonda 11 July 2013 — RoundPonda (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete I don't see anything that makes this specific muzzle device special. I've seen them in action, it's a supressor .. whoop-de-doo. It probably doesn't belong on Smith's page, more on generic page about silencers/flash suppression (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:50, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, most other gun trinkets don't get coverage on Fox News. Someone not using his real name (talk) 19:43, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually [1]--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 21:09, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, I know, I saw the link in the article. The average gun accessory doesn't get that kind of coverage. Even for the KAC sound suppressors, which are common issue on US special forces stuff, it's hard to find the kind of material that would satisfy WP:N. Someone not using his real name (talk) 19:45, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I think it passes the bar for notability. The article is written in a somewhat promotional manner though, with a lot of the material based on primary sources, press releases etc. Most of the book-type independent coverage are passing mentions, but then, I don't know how much one can expect this to be discussed; those refs do add up though. Someone not using his real name (talk) 19:43, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 16:51, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nichole Alden

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

Non-notable musician. No evidence of any awards, or major reviews of her works. Her music has been used in some commercials, if her own YouTube videos of said commercials are to be believed (that is the sole source of verification of said facts), and in some films and trailers, but not to any notable degree. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:45, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I researched and updated her Wikipedia page. The fact that MTV decided to include her in its 'Artists List' is an indication of her public presence in the music industry. Apart from that, the collaboration in major advertisements for companies such as 'Audi' and 'Peugeot' as well as in the soundtrack of cinematic films further strengthens her professional profile. In my opinion, one does not have to reach the top in order to have its work accredited and recognized. Wikipedia is not a 'VIP Club'. NickCitizen

Comment The fact that Alden has an MTV artist page means that she decided to create one. An MTV artist page is about as hard to create as a MySpace page -- any artist of any talent level can create their own page. Collaboration with major advertisers only shows that she has found a useful way to make money with her music, not that she's notable for it. And for that matter, we really have no independent source to verify that the ads in question are using Alden's music; we have only some YouTube videos that claim the music is Alden's. Inclusion in a film soundtrack would be notable, if the film itself were notable. However, inclusion in trailers, and in ads for TV shows (but not in the film or TV show proper) doesn't really make the notability cut. And finally, NickCitizen, Wikipedia is not a 'VIP' club. But it is an encyclopedia of verifiable facts, and without significant independent sources covering Alden, there are no sources from which to verify any facts about her, so her article can't be retained. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:26, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant coverage found in reliable sources; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO (arguably #10 of the latter guideline, but there's no optimal redirect target) at this time. Gong show 14:55, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No delete I will admit that the article needs some work, and it reads like it's most likely a selfie. I do feel, however, that having almost a million hits on a myriad of posted videos and having her work associated with a number of internationally recognized films/television shows definitely makes her notable. Stub the page then fix the page - don't eliminate it.Jmasiulewicz (talk) 01:38, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please remember that notability is not the same as popularity. Alden's popularity has not seemed to result in the generation of reliable sources from which to build a verifiable article. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:21, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only criterion of WP:MUSICBIO she comes even close to is (as User:Gongshow pointed out) is #10, "Has performed music for a work of media that is notable...", but #10 also points out that if that's the only claim to notability, a redirect may be appropriate. The best (or only) option I see is The Fog (2005 film)#Music, but what I'm really thinking is ... come back when you've got a record deal of your own. -Wine Guy~Talk 22:56, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG as well as MUSICBIO; she has no significant coverage, even at AllMusic. She falls into WP:UPANDCOMING. Bearian (talk) 16:19, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 20:39, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

LiveMap

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

Advertising that fails Notability. This is a speculative article about an unrealeased future product from a company seeking to generate buzz in order to attract investors. The only coverage is blog posts from the likes of Wired, Gizmodo, etc who simply regurgitate press releases and cool looking graphics from anybody with a sci-fi looking idea. This is trivial coverage and fails the requirement for sustained, in depth coverage from independent sources. Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:27, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is an article describing the product that is being developed. Anyone who wants more coverage than well-known and respectable Wired and Gizmodo is welcome to Moscow to look at working prototypes. Maybe the community wants more photos of the working process? It's not quite a problem. Just for information - the "copyrighted image" is not the property of Wired, but a part of LiveMap video. If Mr. Bratland payed more attention to the question he could notice it. Anyway he is welcome to visit Moscow too. --Bear on bike (talk) 15:49, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, what you're saying is, you represent LiveMap and so you have a conflict of interest here. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:10, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination information above. Non-notable promotional article. Article creator is Bear on bike who seems to be a representative of the company.kikichugirl (talk) 20:58, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom -- Gizmodo said it wasn't even a prototype yet in June. Wikipedia should not be covering it at this stage of development and sketchy third party coverage. — Brianhe (talk) 05:07, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 05:01, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

West Valley Christian School

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

No longer a high school, so is not automatically Notable, and article gives no claim for Notability. GeorgeLouis (talk) 15:14, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - formerly a high school; and once notable, always notable. Some local press coverage, albeit for the shuttering of the high school. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:24, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
keep As OM says. WP is an encyclopedia , and keeps historical information. If we included only currently operating schools, we'd be more of a directory. 'DGG (at NYPL) (talk) 16:52, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - If it's formerly a high school, it still has the high school notability. Also, I found some additional sources about the school. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:42, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
keep - now notable as one of the main destinations of the two students who died in the Flight 214 crash - people will be interested, they may have memorials, etc.. eug (talk) 12:38, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This school has existed since 1978, and even as a mere elementary school that would suffice for notability. As a former high school and popular camp location it is also notable. It may not deserve a super-long in depth article, but it certainly deserves an article. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 21:17, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 05:01, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

EOZY

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

There is no third-party reliable source to prove its notability. Reference #1~3 and #5~12 are all self-published (some are duplicated), while #4 and #13 lead to domain statistic websites, which can't be considered as primary sources. Zhaofeng Li [talk... contribs...] 14:37, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable 3rd party sources to indicate notability. AllyD (talk) 18:50, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've tried to improve it, but with no reliable 3rd party sources for notability, the dream is over. I have admitted defeat ages ago, and it is about time this article came to AfD. jcc (tea and biscuits) 19:02, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It looks like an advertisement. STSC (talk) 00:49, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - can't find any reliable third party source to establish its notability. -Zanhe (talk) 19:06, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW; there's no question this doesn't belong here. Please visit http://en.wikiquote.org/ instead. postdlf (talk) 19:06, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Marilyn monroe quotes

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

WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Any salvageable, attributable quotes belong on Wikiquote. Kolbasz (talk) 14:17, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. I suppose, in the loosest sense possible, it could fall under A5 in CSD in that we have a better collection at Wikiquote. Normally I would be all "Let's redirect this to Marilyn Monroe!", but today I'm just going to say delete. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 14:29, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 20:36, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Graham Hicks

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

Non notable minor league baseball player, never advanced past the low minors. Previous afd led to merge but he is no longer with any organization so merge is no longer possible. Spanneraol (talk) 12:59, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spanneraol (talk) 13:02, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable.--Yankees10 16:16, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Yankees10 Mpejkrm (talk) 22:19, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 20:35, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Kujawski

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

Unsourced BLP. His work is not highly cited and he has a H-index of about 8 according to google scholar while in a highly cited field (WP:ACADEMIC. English is the language of science, but I could find no secondary sources, so WP:GNG is not met. The article consists of an uncited claim about developing a particular theory, which may be original research. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:22, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:10, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:10, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:10, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:PROF and WP:GNG. The claim looks dubious (there would be more citations were it true). -- 202.124.73.2 (talk) 13:57, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of evidence of passing WP:PROF. Citations too low and no other reason for keeping apparent. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:06, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Coverage on Wikipedia of Cold War era eastern European academics often seems to suffer from systemic bias, and this looks to be the case here. While it is not clear from the article, the subject seems to have spent most of his career in Poland with only short periods elsewhere, but it is these latter that the article seems to be concentrating on. Googling with suitable qualifiers, the subject was obviously a respected academic in Poland during his later years and there should be a research record to match - but most of what one would expect does not seem to be showing up on Google. The most likely explanation is that the work we can see is mainly in English but that, like most eastern European scientists during most of his career, he will have been publishing far more in Russian - and that this has been entirely missed. It might well be useful if someone could search for this before the AfD closes - though if (as is possible) much of his work was militarily sensitive by Soviet standards, even this may not succeed (unfortunately, systemic bias is sometimes genuinely unavoidable). PWilkinson (talk) 18:04, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

English is the language of laser physics, there are even English language soviet journals. The claim that a Polish born academic who worked in the UK and West Germany, and never for the soviets, actually wrote in Russia, seems a little far fetched and implausible. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:20, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very implausible. Kujawski was in Warsaw in 1964, writing at least partly in English, and already in the USA in 1965. We don't judge notability by imaginary publications. As to his Polish publications, they all seem to be on Google Scholar, though not well-cited. There may be other Polish sources that establish notability, but we can't assume they exist. Polish Wikipedia does have pl:Adam Kujawski, but there are no Polish sources establishing notability there. -- 202.124.88.39 (talk) 05:35, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent secondary sources. Does not meet any of our notability guidelines by a wide mile. Could not find any significant coverage in Polish, either. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 09:38, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 UFO sightings in China. (non-admin closure) czar · · 18:22, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Meng Zhaoguo incident

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

Non-notable reported close encounter of the seventh kind. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:03, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is evidence of the incident meeting WP:GNG. (a book, Time magazine). No prejudice against merge suggestions. -- cyclopia^speak! 11:41, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:09, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:09, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:09, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge to UFO sightings in China. It's attracted international interest: the above plus[2][3][4]. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:36, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Poke - had a re-write with sources. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 20:52, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to UFO sightings in China in agreement with Colapeninsula. The independent references provide sufficient notability for the incident for inclusion. However, a condensed version of this article could extend the current single sentence on the incident in the section on UFO sightings in China in 1994. Kooky2 (talk) 22:50, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(Procedural) accept merge as appropriate; however I won't withdraw the nomination, as that would close this nomination without opening a merge nomination. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:39, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 05:45, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pakeha Party

Delete its a page made for fun as the maker himself said on radio live that it was never serious and its causing the NZ country to divide its an embarrassment to NZ that we have such uneducated small minded people. Many agree! He admitted he doesn't even know much about New Zealand history and it isn't an actual party yet.

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

This unregistered party in New Zealand, based on a Facebook group, was just created recently - the Facebook group itself was only created June 20. They have not yet published any sort of policy or platform (according to one article "supporters who sign up to its website - which is currently under construction - will be able to vote for its policy platforms in the coming weeks"). There is exactly one reliable source about it ([5], [6]) and a couple blog posts ([7], [8]). Does not meet WP:GNG, nor does anyone affiliated with the party. Its article also has very little useful content - its only section is dedicated to grammatical errors on their Facebook page, and it has serious POV issues ("is a racist political party", "Whether the Pakeha Party are "serious", or just "not very smart", is still a hotly contested topic"). It may materialize into a more substantial unregistered party in the coming months, but it's not there yet. Dcoetzee 09:30, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article has substantially changed since I wrote this and seems to be undergoing active edit wars, but regardless continues to have both notability and bias issues. Dcoetzee 09:39, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The bias issues could be solved by protecting it and reverting it back to IdiotSavant's version. Haminoon (talk) 09:59, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. - Its certainly not notable, although it possibly could become notable later on. The 'one reliable source' is actually from the Australian Associated Press - I don't think any New Zealand media have mentioned them yet. Haminoon (talk) 09:44, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'd like to withdraw my delete based on the amount of media coverage it has since received, and the absurdly large number of racists who have "pre-joined" the "party" in the last day. Haminoon (talk) 07:18, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by 'pre-joined'? Liked the facebook page? That doesn't seem noteworthy. At present I can't see in any sense how this can be defined as a 'party'; It has no leader (the person running the page doesn't want to, and admits he has no political knowledge to the extreme of not even knowing when the next election is), no infrastructure, no organisation, no members (the facebook page is still talking in the hypothetical about whether people would become members), no website, no policies. As far as I can tell it exists solely as a facebook page, and one individual admin who explicitly doesn't want to start an actual party himself.121.75.134.62 (talk) 22:31, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yep that's right. That's why I added "unregistered and unincorporated" to the page. Haminoon (talk) 04:34, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But in what sense is it a party, even with the qualifiers 'unregistered and unincorporated'? Surely the fact that there's no one officially attached to this 'party', not even the person who started the whole thing, it can't be said to exist as a party in any meaningful way. Is the Facebook page 'People against the Pakeha Party Party' an unregistered and unincorporated NZ political party by the same standard? 121.74.249.43 (talk) 05:23, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I figure they're a party because they say they are, just like the Communist Party of Aotearoa. Who the hell are they? Not even committed communists seem to know. Haminoon (talk) 09:36, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But that's the thing, afaics 'they' don't say they are. The one guy behind the page has explicitly said he doesn't want to run a party. He's merely used the word 'party' in the name of his Facebook page, which he said he intended as a joke playing on the name of the Maori Party.121.74.249.43 (talk) 03:12, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For new unregistered parties its largely done on intent. Do they call themselves a party? Do they say they are going to put up candidates or try and incorporate or register? As an amateur party watcher, it is quite normal for the leadership and even the name of a party to change during the process of establishment (see e.g. Focus NZ). What's unusual is for a new party to get this level of media attention.--IdiotSavant (talk) 13:36, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No they don't say they're going to put up candidates, there's one guy behind it and he has explicitly said he started it as a joke and doesn't want to run a political party because he has no political knowledge (down to not knowing when the next election is). He even tried to sell the page unsuccessfully for a ridiculous sum. The media aren't reporting it as a real political party, there's nothing equivilent to the organisation of a political party, not even any actual policies, they're reporting it as one person with a facebook page (so even saying do 'they' say is flawed).121.74.247.109 (talk) 23:31, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. gadfium 09:47, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a facebook page and nothing more. It is not a political party, registered or unregistered. To even have the word "Party" as part of its title is factually incorrect. It is also not "non-racist." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wisest woman (talk • contribs)
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Not a registered political party (and likely never will be). At present nothing more than an online joke, any coverage failing WP:SIGCOV and WP:NOTNEWS. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 10:34, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:07, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:07, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:07, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The party has only just come to people's attention, and while there were few NZ media sources today, I expect more over the next few days (one obvious one). The POV issues can be resolved as they are for other controversial organisations. As for notability, policy for NZ political parties is that a party is notable if it registers (a high barrier in NZ), registers a logo, or contests an election; because the latter is backward-looking, parties are added to allow material to be developed, then deleted when it becomes apparent that a party was not notable, usually after election day. This party has announced its intention to seek registration, and so it is being treated the same as other parties in the same stage of their life-cycle. --IdiotSavant (talk) 12:38, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per IdiotSavant, as that is how we have traditionally dealt with political parties in New Zealand. Schwede 66 19:12, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. As per DerbyCountyinNZ's points. Clearly fails WP:GNG, with a large side of WP:RECENT. Also agree with Wisest woman's point that the article is misleading; it's merely a facebook page at present that's received some attention on a slow news day, not a political party.Number36 (talk) 02:40, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"keep" for the meantime unchanged. It records opinions and what people hope to achieve with them. A few weeks and months will tell whether this is a momentary eclipse of the brain matter or something that goes to the heart of NZ society issues.
Delete. I think this page was created too early as it hasn't yet achieved notability. If it does go on to register a logo in the next few months and establish some policies then it may be able to be recreated. Mattlore (talk) 06:07, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"strong keep" this is a very strong movement and currently has over ten times the support on facebook than the mana party
Comment. The person who runs the facebook page has explicitly said he doesn't want to run a political party, and would rather someone with more political knowledge did it. I.e. the alleged 'party' has no leader, hasn't registered as such, has no infrastructure or organisation, and does not qualify to be defined as a 'party' in any way shape or form. Simply starting a facebook page with the word party in the title doesn't qualify, nor does getting facebook likes count as notability or having a couple of new items over the course of a couple of days. Heck, I've seen funny cat stories with more mainstream news coverage. If it sustains and actually goes somewhere it may in that very unlikely event become notable, but we don't look in the crystal ball and have articles on the off-chance something may become notable in the future. As it is we're just talking about a facebook page.121.75.134.62 (talk) 23:20, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We have plenty of articles on unregistered New Zealand political parties, see List of political parties in New Zealand. The issue at hand is whether this particular party has the coverage. Currently, I'm not seeing that coverage yet, so Delete. Almost certainly if the party were to run, it would received oxygen and end up with the coverage (alas). Stuartyeates (talk) 07:43, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. There does appear to be growing coverage. I think it will meet WP:GNG in a week's time. If not, delete.Couper830 (talk) 09:54, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question How many sources are needed for significant coverage? Couper830 (talk) 06:42, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a question of number, but of quality. A single book-length academic study will make a subject notable, for example. In this case, look for longer news-review articles citing multiple authorities. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:55, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the new website http://pakehaparty.org.nz/ in no way qualifies as a reliable source. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:43, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Has made headlines a lot over the past couple of weeks. Official party registration would increase notability, but I think it is already well-established. Adabow (talk) 01:35, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete After further thought I believe that, like other Facebook pages (some of which receive a lot of media coverage), it is a fleeting phase of limited notability, not really a party in any sense. Adabow (talk) 03:47, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as there is now enough local and national coverage in all the New Zealand media (TV1, TV3, Stuff, NZ Herald, NBR, and assorted radio stations etc) to now easily meet WP:GNG. The depth of coverage also seems sufficient to meet the notability guidelines. Even the Facebook page has become newsworthy - NBR says it is up for sale for a mere NZ$100,000. NealeFamily (talk) 04:06, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's barely being covered now, it's a handful of instances over a short amount of time, that as far as I can see none of which treat it seriously. A facebook page with this little and nature of coverage does not meet WP:GNG. Articles like the one in the NBR ('Pakeha Party founder tries to flog website for $100k') indicate that it's not an actual political party. I can only assume 'for a mere NZ$100,000' is intended ironically.121.74.247.109 (talk) 22:53, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1,690 hits on mainstream media doesn't make it a handful, with coverage now being over almost two months. Yes, it's not likely to exist in the next General Election, but that does not take it out of the range to meet WP:GNG. The timeframe is not what makes the article significant, it is the significant amount coverage. And, no I don't support the party - it is merely the articles right to exist in Wiki. NealeFamily (talk) 04:18, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are not 1,690 examples of mainstream media coverage, that's misleading, it is just handful, and the Facebook page itself isn't even one month old started on the 20th of June, so there isn't two months worth of coverage (and it was up for a while before MSN NZ decided to stick it on its front page and got it attention). The amount and nature of the coverage is not significant. Heck that amateur porn filmed with a cell phone on a train in San Francisco has more mainstream news articles worldwide. There's no such thing as a 'right to exist in wiki'.121.73.221.187 (talk) 13:40, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, in reply - the 1,690 came from your Google link - so Google is misleading. The coverage is significant because the "Pakeha Party" is still being covered in mainstream national media and has been for what is now a reasonable length of time. Maybe the porn star is in Wiki, have you checked? And, as to the right to exist - if the article meets WP:GNG then it does have the right to exist. So to check it off: significant coverage = yes, reliable sources = yes (excluding Facebook), sources are secondary = yes, independent of the subject = yes, and meets Wiki is not. Although you may consider the party temporary, juxtaposition with race named parties such the Maori Party means it opens an interesting area of debate in NZ politics. This is why it is has drawn so much attention. From a political science view, this party is significant and thereby notable. NealeFamily (talk) 05:12, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can see the number of mainstream media coverage is minimal though by scrolling down, and I think a few of those were blogs and opinion columns. I disagree that's been a reasonable amount of time, it hasn't even been a month and during that time there hasn't been a significant amount of coverage, it's not like it's had continious coverage so the length of time itself is immaterial, it's been a few stories. It's also the nature of those stories, which are not reporting it as a serious political party, but one person with a facebook page. And a number of those stories are about him personally, his criminal record, the question of whether the facebook page is racist, his sounding off at Fast Food worker, etc. The 'porn star' is not the subject of a wikipedia page, especially considering at this stage no one knows who they were and it was an amateur recording that went viral. As per WP:NOTNEWS "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion."121.74.247.109 (talk) 23:31, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 05:44, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Francis Veterinary Center

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

Fails WP:CORP; promotional. The majority of the article pertains to the grand opening of a new department that is being endorsed by a celebrity. All the press is on that one event, mostly speaking to the celebrity's involvement and not so much on the practice itself. All of it is from Metro Philadelphia, excepting the Yahoo ref, which is a reposting of a press release and not independent. I doubt anyone would assert that a veterinarian is going to be notable without the celebrity tie-in. It is promotional due to the severe name dropping on "prominent" people in attendance at the grand opening and the depth of coverage given the one-day event. It is a vet clinic, not a stage for celebs to perform on; where is the notable content on the vet clinic? Gtwfan52 (talk) 07:56, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Although not entirely on-point, this article passed AfC. Gtwfan52 (talk) 07:59, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strangely, the accepted version is not that wildly different from the rejected ones, this was rejected at AFC numerous times. Hairhorn (talk) 19:59, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CommentThe article went through what was probably a higher than usual number of revisions at AfC primarily because I wasn't very familiar with wikipedia rules, so my inexperience was doing a disservice to the content. I didn't initially write the article, but worked to trim and hone it down while learning wikipedia on the fly, ultimately getting it to main space. But the end product is dramatically different form the first drafts of it, and the deficiencies in the process were due to my inexperience, which I hope won't hurt the entry going forward. Mrpresident80 (talk) 11:20, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KeepAccording to wikipedia:corp this article passes all primary criteria. (numbered comments to follow by Mrpresident80 (talk) 13:20, 13 July 2013 (UTC))[reply]

article achieves depth of coverage, as articles make clear the celebrity is not merely endorsing a service, but rather had a concept in mind to apply human medicine to pets at a level he, a professional athlete' receives in his career. That is unusual and notable. And so now this player owns a hospital and is employing this celebrity's vision for medicine. It's not the same as an athlete endorsement a sandwich shop or something - this celebrity had a vision in mind to apply human medicine to pets, and made that vision a reality. Notable.
article discusses a topic that achieved regional attention in the nation's #4 media market of Philadelphia, a media market surpassed only by New York, Los Angeles and Chicago - all of which would be considered 'regional' for wikipedia. Delaware Valley suggests a population reach of more than 6 million people - more than 32 states in the nation. Mrpresident80 (talk) 16:47, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, the article is now even further improved after edits from the wp community.
The commentary in the deletion nomination is inaccurate and misleading, providing the wrong context within which to consider this subject. The subject of the article is not a 'vet clinic' which connotes a small, limited medical facility. Rather, the subject of the article is a specialty hospital that provides advanced medical services, which is supported in the article by the AAHA accreditation information regarding Board Certified specialists, specialty medical disciplines, and news articles outlining the technologies in the rehab center.
The commentary in the deletion nomination minimizes or trivializes the 'celebrity endorsement', even though in this case it seems this is not a standard celebrity 'endorsement'. Instead you have a professional athlete who we can presume experiences state of the art rehabilitative medicine as a condition of his job, building a medical service for animals based on the premise that he wants to apply human medical technologies and techniques to animal rehabilitation. That seems notable.
The commentary in the deletion nomination says there is not enough 'notable content on the vet clinic', even though the article and sourcing clearly outline technologies used that are notable, and accreditation in specialty departments which is notable in terms of describing the notability of the hospital itself.
The commentary in the deletion nomination describes the celebrity's involvement as an 'endorsement' when the celebrity is in fact an owner or profit-share according to publicly available news stories. It seems notable that a celebrity would not merely endorse but actually own an animal hospital or division or clinic of an animal hospital. In fact, it may be notable in that it may be only one of it's kind in this regard.
Wikipedia hosts an article in main space about the American Animal Hospital Association, presumably because the organization and its purpose are 'notable' under wikipedia standards. If AAHA is notable, and it's purpose is notable, then if AAHA declares a specialty hospital as advanced then you have one 'notable' organization (in wikipedia standards) saying another organization is notable, and there is substantive weight to that.
The article seems quite notable given that this animal hospital seeks to apply human standards of medicine and medical technology to animals, which the sources validate especially relative to the Rollins Center.
A United States Senator saying this hospital is 'outstanding and innovative' and going to the length of giving it a Certificate of Special Senate Recognition seems quite 'notable' indeed and validates the hospital overall as a notable subject for wp. Mrpresident80 (talk) 11:20, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete The subject of the article is the Vet Centre and it doesn't meet WP:CORP. A famous baseball player opened a department within the centre, and this received some local media. There is no evidence to support the centre, which is the subject of the article, being anything out of the ordinary apart from Rollins' involvement, and the article subject can not inherit notability from his involvement. 6 of the 7 sources cited relate to Rollins being involved, the other merely confirms the centre holds accreditation. The sources cited would almost certainly not exist if Rollins wasn't involved and don't constitute significant coverage in secondary sources. Similarly, the unreferenced claims relating to a Senator do not transfer notability from the senator to the centre. The fact that the article passed AfC is of no consequence. Flat Out let's discuss it 08:07, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Considerations/Context to Strong Delete from Flat Out (numbered comments to follow by Mrpresident80 (talk) 13:20, 13 July 2013 (UTC))[reply]

To your comment that "A famous baseball player opened a department" - that is in and of itself quite notable.
To your comment that the article subject "received some local media" - the word 'some' in that context may mislead a bit in that it diminishes the amount of press the subject received, as sourced in the article.
To your comment that 6 of 7 sources related to Rollins, I am not aware of any particular ratio of source-to-notability that wikipedia requires.
To your comment that one source "merely" confirms accreditation - a bit of a Catch-22 here. Language was removed earlier as 'promotional' that specifically outlined notability on this point, indicating that fewer than 1% of 27,000 animal hospitals in the US and Canada achieve this particular accreditation in even one discipline, let alone multiple divisions as is the case with the subject of the article. Arguably notable, especially if multiple accredited departments is increasingly difficult and unusual. Perhaps it should be added back in to provide context. Regardless, probably not proper context to describe a level of distinction that 1% of animal hospitals achieves as 'merely...accredited', statistically speaking the top 1% of anything is never 'mere' anything, it's substantial and notable.
To your comment that the Senator's claims don't transfer notability from the Senator to the Center, I have amended that section based on available public information in which the Senator praised the hospital AND the Rollins Center in his presentation of the Certificate. Mrpresident80 (talk) 13:18, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To your comment that the article subject 'received some local media" - I'm not sure the country's 4th largest media market counts as merely 'some' and 'local'. Philadelphia isn't a small town in the middle of no where, it's a mega media market, meaning the article subject received significant regional attention.
To your comment that 'no evidence to support the centre is anything out of the ordinary' - The article offers two citations to communicate notability: 1. A United States Senator issued a Senate Recognition saying the hospital is "outstanding and innovative" which we should see as substantial and notable; and 2. the Hospital Association that is cited in the article has accredited departments as 'specialty'.
To inherit notability position, Rollins department is part and parcel of the hospital, it IS the hospital and vice versa. Logically, they are one and the same in much the same way that a surgery department or cardiology department are part and parcel of an overall hospital. Medical departments cumulatively make up any hospital; departments don't exist on their own outside or apart from a hospital, veterinary or human. Therefore if one is notable per wp, then so is the other.
To the 'what if Rollins wasn't involved' line of thought - I don't know how this is relevant? He IS involved, and that IS notable. The hospital is notable because its capabilities attracted someone like Rollins, and because they could make Rollins' vision of applying human rehab advancements to animals; and Rollins involvement is notable for reasons discussed herein.
The written reason for nomination for deletion notes two things worth addressing: 1. the article seems to talk about the celebrity endorsement but not 2. the department itself. To the former, the celebrity endorsement is essential to the purpose of the department - a professional athlete wanted to take the type of medical care he received as a professional baseball player and provide that to animals. Therefore, it is not just a typical celebrity-endorses-a-product relationship, but rather the celebrity's participation DEFINES the medicine offered and one of the articles explains that well, taht they wanted to take human rehab medicine and provide it to pets. And to the latter, the article does describe notable therapies the department offers like laser, hydro, neurostimulation, etc. Mrpresident80 (talk) 11:20, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a debate, you don't need to "reply" Flat Out let's discuss it 09:24, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, and respect the process here. Much depends on how this discussion is framed - one could say 'some local coverage' or one could say 'coverage in the nation's 4th largest media market'. Or one could say 'this is only a vet clinic' or one could say 'this is a specialty animal hospital that has drawn notice from some of the nation's politicians and celebrities' - the article does source and support the latter in each example, but by using the toned down language of the former in each example, the context created might not be fair to the actual information and sourcing in the article. So my comments here are just meant to provide some additional context. Mrpresident80 (talk) 11:20, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:01, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:01, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:04, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Despite some of the promotional tone, the article does make credible claims of notability regarding the breadth and scope of its clinical offerings. I'm not sure how many celebrity animal hospitals exist and the addition of sources describing the rarity of clinics providing the extensive range of services provided at this center would further establish notability. The torturous history of this article in AfC demonstrates that a substantial collaborative effort has been made to shape an article that would meet Wikipedia standards and I hope that we could give the article a further opportunity to develop. Alansohn (talk) 21:22, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have read each of the references provided and apart from the COO of the centre claiming it is the most advanced centre in the country, there is no evidence that this is the case. What is the benchmark for animal rehab services that that this particular clinic exceeds? Note that the celebrity put his pet through an existing rehab service and that it made a big difference, then helped play a part in opening this one. I can say that the company I work for provides the most advanced home and community care services in the southern hemisphere, that doesn't make it so. Also, with due respect to the hardworking reviewers at AfC I don't believe that because an article was accepted through the AfC process, that it should lend weight here. Flat Out let's discuss it 23:55, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Slightly off point, but I also wonder why we also have Johari & Jimmy Rollins Center for Animal Rehabilitation and if WP:COI is an issue given a previous speedy for deletion on material copied from the Saint Francis website. Flat Out let's discuss it 00:33, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CommentAlthough I didn't create the article I did contribute quite a bit to it, and was involved in that speedy delete - note here: the speedy delete wasn't for using material copied from the website, it was (I have to admit) because it was my first contributions to an article ever on wikipedia and i definitely was not understanding the advice and guidance the editors were giving me. I was using descriptive language that I didn't realize was inappropriate (such as 'advanced' and 'one of a kind' and other unnecessary editorial-type language) in the beginning, which kept flagging it. Finally, I used the live chat feature and worked with those editors (they were awesome!) to get it more in line after I better understood why those words weren't ok. I made an effort to work with the editor who did the speedy delete to understand it all better, and he was kind enough to remove it and work with me to help me understnd. But it was NOT because language was removed from a website, it was my fault for not understanding all the rules. Mrpresident80 (talk) 11:20, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment And regarding Johari & Jimmy Rollins Center for Animal Rehabilitation I added that sort of feeling like I was on a wikipedia 'roll' thinking it was a good standalone article BEFORE you guys took issue with Saint Francis. I'm more interested in the Saint Francis article because this topic fascinates me and I hope other readers. If the individual story on Johari & Jimmy Rollins Center for Animal Rehabilitation was deleted to preserve Saint Francis that would be ok with me if it follows all the rules better. (Personal note, I'm enjoying this process and feel storngly about the veterinary industry, and want to share that info if possible) Mrpresident80 (talk) 01:07, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As a frequenter of Saint Francis Veterinary Center, I have seen the cutting edge treatments and technologies that they incorporate. The fact that they were named 2nd best practice in all of North America by the AAHA goes a long way in my book. It's not a popularity contest, but rather a testament to the good work they do and how much they attempt to stay ahead of the curve. The rehabilitation center as well -- whether or not the Rollins' name is on it, it's the most advanced treatment for our pets. I don't see this as chest-thumping or advertising. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JTMTech (talk • contribs) 15:53, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note JTMTech registered account just to leave this comment. Flat Out let's discuss it 03:10, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE None of this is really relevant to the article itself. The article stands on its own, sourced properly, meeting primary criteria, with or without fans of the hospital or clients of the hospital or anyone else leaving their personal thoughts here. As written, the article stands on its own without need for off-target puffery (a word I've recently learned as part of my wikipedia evolution) Mrpresident80 (talk) 09:26, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. What I don't see, which is necessary for notability, is independent reliable sources and sources that are at the regional level. Moreover, the notability much be about the Veterinary Center and not who promoted its opening.--I am One of Many (talk) 19:05, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article makes no mention about anyone 'promoting' an 'opening' - the article discusses a hospital that has many departments, one of which is co-owned by a celebrity who had a unique idea for a particular area of veterinary medicine and was able to apply that vision in reality. This has nothing to do with promotion, and I am struggling to understand how to make that more clear. The notability is that a celebrity DESIGNED AND OWNS IT, and that medicine is being practiced according to HOW THE CELEBRITY DESIGNED IT. This is not a simple concept of a celebrity endorsing a product and walking away, or showing up once just to promote an opening. Mrpresident80 (talk) 16:39, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Rollins' ownership doesn't bring notability to the subject of the article. Do you have a conflict of interest that you haven't declared? Flat Out let's discuss it 23:17, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: No I don't. But my point of view on this is perhaps not being communicated clearly enough. Notability here, to me, is not that someone 'endorsed' or even necessarily 'owns' a hospital, it's that someone very unusual -a professional athlete - designed a medical center for animals based on the kind of healthcare he gets as a baseball player. To me this has zero to do with a standard endorsement scenario and I do believe editors on this page are looking at this through the wrong lens. The player in the sourced articles says, essentially, 'i have to rehab as a professional athlete and i get a standard of care animals don't. I wanted to change that, so i opened a hospital to do it, to offer human medicine to animals.' That's a paraphrase based on the sourced articles, but to me, the notablility is in the HOW and the WHY this came to be, not in the mere fact that a celeb or notable person endorsed or only owns it. If that makes sense. Mrpresident80 (talk) 22:55, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If Joe Bloggs decided there was a case for a different way of doing things, would it (a) receive the same media and (b) be regarded as noteworthy as if a celebrity wasn't involved? Flat Out let's discuss it 23:20, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Bloggs works for Princeton Review SAT prep (I assume that's where the reference comes from) so certainly not, there isn't much that gives him substantial expertise or capability, or any coherent angle into physical rehab medicine. However, Joe Bloke is a fake professional football player who has undergone the world's most advanced rehabiliation therapies as a prerequisite of his job and career. He broke a leg, got surgery and rehabbed. Then he tore a ligament, got it fixed, and got rehab. When he got older he got arthritis and went to rehab. He therefore had a very unique insight and expertise and experience with physical rehabilitation. He knew what water therapies and laser and massage and whatever else there is in that field could do. And he had the idea, from his experience, to apply it to animals. So he bought himself a hospital, turned it into a rehab department and then hired doctors to apply medical standards to his vision. And people thought it was interesting because their animals, like the athletes' they root for on tv, suffer the same broken bones, torn muscles and joint problems (and whatever else) and need and they know professional athletes are given teh best care possible to keep them playing, and are therefore interested in what Joe Bloke offers to pets. Sorry for the long hypothetical but a hypothetical answer seemed appropriate for a hypothetical question (and an interesting one). Mrpresident80 (talk) 00:58, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORP and WP:GNG. There was a small flurry of local press coverage about the opening of the rehab facility a few months ago. Sure, the celebrity is notable, but WP:notability is not inherited. Basically this is just a one-office local veterinary practice, and aside from the rehab facility publicity, I can find no independent reliable-source coverage at all about the clinic itself. In fact, based on a hl=en&gl=us&tbm=nws&authuser=0&q=%22Saint+Francis+Veterinary+Center%22&oq=%22Saint+Francis+Veterinary+Center%22&gs_l=news-cc.3..43j43i53.2381.12294.0.12966.39.9.0.28.0.0.261.626.2j1j1.4.0...0.0...1ac.1.SEf0fYAlcLo#q=Saint+Francis+Veterinary+Center&hl=en&gl=us&authuser=0&tbm=nws&source=lnt&tbs=ar:1&sa=X&ei=ApfjUej-MomlqgGqlIGgCQ&ved=0CCAQpwUoBQ&bav=on.2,or.r_qf.&bvm=bv.48705608,d.aWM&fp=2faf54a54f3b692a&biw=1148&bih=678 Google News Archive search, a similarly-named clinic in Florida has a far better claim to notability than this one in New Jersey. --MelanieN (talk) 06:40, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is an interesting wikipedia conundrum. There are likely many notable subjects who, by definition of their subject matter, are not often in the news. Veterinary medicine is one of those areas that Wikipeida would under-cover, and therefore never build a substantial body of information. Whereas (for example) scandal-laden celebrities would pass the threshold but add no substantive value. To that end, a celebrity owning, planning, and defining a veterinary hospital should be notable enough for main space. And to the 'news' concept of notability, the one in Florida got pres because it built a new hospital - is that information notable, merely because it's in the news that it built a new building? Moreso than a celebrity building a hospital and defining the medicine within it? Mrpresident80 (talk) 22:39, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since you keep harping on the connection with Jimmy Rollins - which appears to be the ONLY thing that gives this clinic even a passing claim to notability - why not simply add the information to the Jimmy Rollins article? Actually, I see that there is already a full section on it at the Rollins article. So in lieu of deletion, it would be possible to redirect this title to Jimmy Rollins#The Rollins Center For Animal Rehabilitation. However, I don't favor that, since the name Saint Francis Veterinary Center is not unique. --MelanieN (talk) 01:27, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Intriguing - why not a viable option? I wouldn't know how to do that btw, still a newbie at wikipedia. Mrpresident80 (talk) 17:05, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You wouldn't be the one to do it. The administrator who closes this discussion will decide if it is to be done. --MelanieN (talk) 19:11, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Most of what exists in the subsection of the Rollins article on "Community" is nothing but self-referenced, self-serving pr. Merging this would just be more of the same.Gtwfan52 (talk) 22:39, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's been trimmed several times in the past 24 hours - by me and by another editor. --MelanieN (talk) 02:09, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 19:47, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

State Route 40 (New South Wales)

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

No longer a current route, covered in other articles, permastub. Routes made up of mainly notable roadways should also be deleted (This route is covered by: Western Distributor, Victoria Road, Sydney (incl. Gladesville Bridge), James Ruse Drive, and Bells Line of Road (The only subroad(s) without articles are Windsor and Old Windsor Roads)) Nbound (talk) 05:39, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Evad37 (talk) 06:42, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While it is made up of notable component roads, the route itself is not notable. - Evad37 (talk) 06:37, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Bells Line of Road, James Ruse Drive and Victoria Road, Sydney already includes State Route 40, and has a lot more information. It is also a convention not to have wiki articles named after route allocations. Marcnut1996 (talk) 09:11, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all of the reasons outlined above. It's also worth pointing out that Nbound, Evad37 and Marcnut1996 are all active members of WikiProject Australian Roads and I'm inclined to think that if deletion were not warranted, they would be among the first to say so. Solid consensus to delete from among members of a relevant WikiProject is always reassuring. Stalwart111 11:48, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:58, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the route itself does not have sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 01:44, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It should be noted that being "no longer a current route" is not a reason to delete, and neither is being a "permastub". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:16, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I probably should have put the notability information first in my nom, but its too late now... This article really should have been deleted the first time round, when it was still a route, the consensus for Australian roads is that we dont cover most routes, especially when well covered elsewhere. (This is essentially the opposite rule to US roads notability guidelines which most editors would be more familiar with; but works better here, as roads are often known exclusively (or near exclusively) by name alone). The permastub comment referred to the lack of potential for expansion, not its expansion history alone. In other words the best this page could hope for would be to become a disambig, or overview page (by copying small amounts of existing information largely verbatim from existing articles). The not current route information is for those who dont reside in NSW/Sydney, or arent members of WP:AURD, and may not be aware of this roads actual status. (ie. its not as described in the article- The road is not a "major route" as self-described, its really a former minor route.) -- Nbound (talk) 22:54, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Covered enough by existing articles. p b p 04:23, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 16:51, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IPayables

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

Page created by a COI editor. It's been CSD'd already (iirc). Article is extremely adverty and spammy. The almighty Google God shows nothing in regards to news articles and really nothing in regards to the company being notable. Dusti^*poke* 05:16, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This page has been deleted four times already. It may be appropriate, should consensus be to delete, to salt the page. Dusti^*poke* 05:23, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:00, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:00, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:00, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Salt. Fails WP:CORP; Google News Archive finds mainly press releases. --MelanieN (talk) 03:10, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete = I did a couple of different searches, and found nothing but Wikis, Facebook, general coporate listings, and press releases, none of which even verifies the company's existence. I could not find it at the California SOS website. In fact, from what I could find, it has a handful of clients (at least four, but can't be much more, if they issued a press release in February 2013 announcing "two more clients"). I found a listing at Business Week that the firm was founded in 1999, but I can't see anything more than trivial coverage. This a small, non-public, run of the mill billing firm, thus failing WP:CORP and WP:GNG. We are not a webhost for companies. Bearian (talk) 16:33, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 15:19, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of God of War: Ascension downloadable content

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

I would like some editors to give their input on how does this pass wp:GNG. Nergaal (talk) 04:05, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources are reliable, and although there's a lot of primary sources, those sources are confirming the release of the content. I personally believe this AfD is unnecessary and could have easily been discussed elsewhere before taking this measure. --JDC808 ♫ 21:31, 7 July 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) 04:58, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:58, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Far too excessive detailed. We don't generally summarize DLC in this fashion, and only call it out in prose if its notable (in limited cases, like the GTA IV episodes, it may even get its own article, but that's because it includes reception details). --MASEM (t) 05:01, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I guess these could be AfD'd too, eh? (1, 2). They don't have reception and have a lot of primary sources. On top of that, far more detailed. --JDC808 ♫ 06:06, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For one WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is an improper argument, though I'm not saying that the LBP DLC lists are appropriate. However, here, most of what this list is is DLC gear, which falls under GAMEGUIDE type stuff. Noting in the main article that special gear was offered, sure. But we don't need the level of breakdown here to cover that. --MASEM (t) 06:16, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As per OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, I wasn't saying that "because those exist, this should to", I was saying that "because this is being AfD'd for reasons stated, shouldn't those be as well?" In regards specifically to the contents of this list, this info was too excessive in the main article, which is why this list was made. To use OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as a proper argument, that's why other lists of DLC were created (such as LBP, Mass Effect, and all of the Rock Band/Guitar Hero ones). --JDC808 ♫ 06:43, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm torn on this, as usually, I feel that this sort of things is WP:GAMECRUFT or non-notable, but it really is well written and organized. Have the DLC received much in the way of coverage/review/criticism/etc? I'd be more inclined to lean one way or another if there was anything in the way of "Development" or "Reception" like content to be tagged on somewhere... Sergecross73 msg me 13:07, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Haven't found anything (reliable wise at least) on reviews/criticism, but there is some coverage (I'll find more and add it). There was some new stuff released today, so that may bring about some reviews soon. --JDC808 ♫ 00:36, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 18:44, 15 July 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) 16:56, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 20:32, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Eliason

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by an IP without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:52, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:53, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:51, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:51, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:51, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails notability criteria for sportspersons. Shovon (talk) 05:59, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:15, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm not that familiar with Wikipedia guidelines but I'm a long time user of Wikipedia and I feel that Eliason should have an article. His college career was outstanding, and his performance at the Messi event (generally considered the best soccer player currently) was outstanding. Several news outlets have covered him and he may have a future in professional soccer. Eliason received a pass from Henry (a well established international footballer) and handled it beautifully for the goal. Note new link to ESPN FC blog. MikeOtown (talk) 13:37, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately there's something for people who have received media attention for just the one thing: WP:BLP1E. I've got no problem with a mention for him in the article for Northwestern's soccer team. Well, except there isn't one yet. If there were enough Northwestern alumni playing MLS it might well be a viable article. (nb: I hope you don't mind me re-formatting your !vote) --Shirt58 (talk) 13:17, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reformatting to the proper format. It's odd to me that Wikipedia's main criteria for sports is based on money. Eliason is definitely notable and he may popup on a pro team at some point and apparently having his own article wouldn't even be debatable then. It could be that he's a better soccer player than many pros, but he chooses to work for Citi instead of a soccer club. MikeOtown (talk) 13:19, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unitversity/college footballer that has not been signed by any MLS clubs makes him non-notable. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 14:07, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable by any guideline. Kooky2 (talk) 09:29, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:37, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of political leaders renowned for their integrity

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

Violates various provisos of WP:NOT. The list can never be complete, nor can a viable criteria for inclusion on the list be established. Previous discussion closed as no-consensus after being ARS canvassed. p b p 03:44, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete per WP:LISTN. No indication the list, i.e. the grouping, is notable. Agree that inclusion is arbitrary and on dubious grounds: some such as Aung San Suu Kyi are based on the briefest of mentions in a sentence ripped out of context. No chance of ever being complete: I would think every country down the ages has at least as many politicians with integrity as e.g. those from the USA that are listed.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 04:25, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Utterly subjective inclusion criteria. One person's "righteous leader" is the next person's war criminal... Not to mention, assuming a group of strangers from around the globe can agree that this or that political leader exhibits the unmeasurable trait called "integrity" — at what point is one "renowned" for it rather than merely "well known" for it or "known to have shown it"? This is inherently amorphous and unencyclopedic. Carrite (talk) 04:40, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:50, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:50, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- as inherently subjective, with unclear inclusion criteria. Lists must make a case that their subject is notable; it is not enough to say that all the items in the list are notable (for whatever reason) and therefore any conceivable grouping of them inherits inclusion-worthiness from those items. This list is a prime example of why. Carrite makes an excellent point regrading how we can distinguish a politician famous because of their honesty from one merely perceived to be honest but not famous solely for that reason, or where we should draw the line on that. I also think the list is an inevitable edit war magnet, where supporters of one party will edit war to remove politicians from a rival party and substitute their candidates more to their own liking. Finally, I think the article was extremely lucky to survive last time, as IMO consensus to delete was clearly established. Reyk _YO! 07:00, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While the leaders in the list are notable, suggesting that they are notable "for their integrity" seems like original research. I think the article creator misinterpreted Template:Dynamic list as meaning that a list can indeed be arbitrary inclusion-wise. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 07:10, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The ARS is a wikiproject like any other, and it is not canvassing to post there. It attracts as many delete votes as keep votes most times anyway. Also, reading through there, I showed up from Warden's talk page, just as I did this time as well, and others said Keep before me. Anyway, since this is just a rerun of a past discussion where the nominator didn't get his way, I'll just copy over my comments from there. Honest Abe and others were in fact known for their honesty. Reliable sources confirm this, you able to just look in a college level history textbook, or a printed encyclopedia to confirm the information. Showing a list of such people throughout history is quite encyclopedic. This was something they were famous for, not just some random arbitrary thing. Dream Focus 07:33, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Dream Focus 07:36, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep As per sources already in the article, the list topic gets coverage even in top tier RSs (such as a book from Oxford University press). As per the leading political scientist John Mearsheimer "Every audience and almost every person I have spoken to quickly becomes engaged and excited by the subject [honesty in politicians], and many want to talk at length about it." Compliance with basic content policies makes the list non arbitrary - we need only include a politician if they are described as being famous for their honesty by a reliable source. As for the speculation that the list will attract edit warriors, the article has been nice and stable for its entire history, apart from the two attempts to destroy it. P.S. I saw this AfD from the Colonel's talk, ARS is not even on my watchlist at present. FeydHuxtable (talk) 08:06, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - "one man's terorist is another man's freedom fighter" i.e. politicians may be described by supporters as having integrity but by opponents as lacking it. This list is therefore completely and uterly pointless. Giant Snowman 08:49, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my last delete rationale [9] which is similar to GiantSnowman's rationale as well. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 10:56, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Inherently and hopelessly subject POV magnet that will result in nothing but constant bickering. Objective inclusion criteria will never be formulated. Topic is non-notable. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 11:18, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The page has been remarkably stable since the last discussion and there is not the slightest sign of it being an "edit war magnet" or "constant bickering". Such claims are therefore blatantly false. The topic is notable, being discussed in numerous sources such as Honest Politics, Politics by Civil Means, and Politicians, honesty and the higher amorality of politics, and therefore passes WP:LISTN. The nomination introduces no new evidence or argument and there seems to be a disruptive aspect to it, contrary to WP:HARASS, WP:POINT and WP:DEL, "It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hopes of getting a different outcome." Warden (talk) 11:52, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First off, I didn't start the first AfD. Secondly, it is perfectly acceptable to renom something that was closed as no consensus at any time, let alone after four months have passed. Please familiarize yourself with relevant guidelines before accusing another editor of disruption p b p 15:44, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per GiantSnowman and Dennis Brown mostly. Yet another list based on single source POV which could be depopulated by the finding of equally reliable sources that suggest otherwise. If I can find a source that suggests Lincoln wasn't as honest as some have suggested, can I remove him from the list? Stalwart111 12:08, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You wouldn't have to look hard, Lincoln is a favourite target of ultra-far-right conservatives, some of whom are apparently still bitter about that whole ending slavery thing. There's even whole books on the subject. I think this illustrates how silly these POV lists are. There are no perfect angels in the real world, and even in cases where someone is held up as unassailably heroic or demonically evil, there are always dissenters. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:17, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ha ha, yes, it was a bit of a loaded question in that sense. Of course there are sources that say otherwise. We've had a bunch of these at AFD of late - just glad people are considering this one logically. Stalwart111 03:27, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, essentially per Carrite. History is rarely if ever as black-and-white as this list wants to pretend it is. Let's look at an example from the list, Cincinnatus, who makes the list for abdicating (twice!) responsibilities as dictator of Rome. Now, he lived 2500 years before I was born and as a result never showed up to my cocktail parties, but for the sake of this discussion let's imagine he was as the list implies: a really swell guy, grade-A do-gooder, Ned Stark in a toga, a real hoopy frood. At first glance it seems noble, but if he was so wonderful he could have done a lot more good in office than out of it, and he was replaced by someone who wasn't as awesome. Did he wisely leave before politics inevitably corrupted him, or did he selfishly avoid responsibility at the cost of the greater good? Was it morally correct? One could argue around these points all day without meaningful conclusion. My point is that Wikipedia has a responsibility not to portray history in these Kindergarten-level good-guy/bad-guy POVs. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:15, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unfortunately it is impossible to decide entries for such a subject a NPOV/NOR fashion. That the honesty of politicians as a general concept is a notable subject, I'm sure, but when dealing with individual historical figures, it's too murky and subjective. -- cyclopia^speak! 15:06, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We can specify what reliable sources count. A university level textbook surely would. The history books of certain award winning notable historians would count perhaps. Perhaps rename it to List of political leaders well known for their integrity or List of political leaders given ample coverage in reliable sources for their honesty and integrity. Hmm... need to think of a different name perhaps. Dream Focus 18:50, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete criteria. "renowned" undefined, dramatically different source-ability for subjects crossing literally millenia. Additionally, list topic not individually notable. That X people share a characteristic does not make that characteristic inherently notable. What sources are discussing the topic as a whole? Gaijin42 (talk) 15:54, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pure OR. As Andrew Lenahan says above, "My point is that Wikipedia has a responsibility not to portray history in these Kindergarten-level good-guy/bad-guy POVs." Quite. I understand that. --Richhoncho (talk) 19:00, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Speculative , and how do we determine whether or not a person can make it onto this list? What makes for integrity and what makes for being renowned? There are also hundreds and hundreds of "political leaders" out there, well-known locally, nationally, internationally, or otherwise. As per above, list will never be complete. If we fail to include certain people, would it be an insult to them? Fails WP:LISTN as well.
Integrity is so subjective, and such an opinion. What may seem like a person of integrity to you or to a news source may not seem like a person of integrity to another. There are plenty of people who would say, for example, Obama is a good, honest president, and then there are also plenty of people who say that he is a liar/a bad president etc. How do we maintain such a subjective list? Inclusion/exclusion on the list could end up controversial and result in edit warring. -kikichugirl (talk) 21:16, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, especially Carrite, GS, Cyclopia. Not much more I can say. Ansh666 07:11, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Integrity is very POV. Washington kept slaves, allowed them to be whipped etc. He is claimed to have been against slavery, but did not use his position to do anything about it, not very integrous.Martin451 (talk) 10:56, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, rubbish and essay. Notably, polls find that many Russians feel that Joseph Stalin was less corrupt than later leaders, does that warrant his inclusion in the list? --Soman (talk) 11:17, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was also thinking about The German bloke who won an Iron Cross in WWI for bravery, rebuilt his country, and took his own life rather than be captured.Martin451 (talk) 12:47, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Topic of article treats integrity as if it were some empirically mensurable quality, analogous to a "list of political leaders who were in office 20 years or longer" or "list of political leaders who wore sideburns whilst in office". The topic is more along the lines of "list of political leaders who were known for being indecisive" or "list of political leaders who had poor taste in music". Only chance of saving this would be under the title of something as unwieldy as "list of political leaders who were very well renowned indeed for their integrity, with the exception of fringe nutters (and by "nutters" it is meant the people who didn't the hold those leaders in renown, not the leaders themselves, if you see what I mean)". --Shirt58 (talk) 11:55, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Utterly subjective. Ridiculous. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:21, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Too subjective, and inherently POV. Even Abraham Lincoln has been seen by some historians to be, politically, a sharp horse trader. Requires proof by exhaustion. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 16:45, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Coming back here today, seeing the overwhelming Deletes, I support speedy close & delete per WP:SNOW. --kikichugirl (talk) 04:21, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "Can never be complete" or "does not have mechanical criteria for inclusion" are not thoughtful reasons for deletion or even sophisticated thinking. Nothing has changed since the last deletion attempt and people were pleased by the improvements in the article and several switched from delete to keep. I am seeing some repetition in deletion attempts (pbp for one). I wonder if there is canvassing by the deleters, not the reverse. These repeated deletion attempts are vexing and gamey. I would hope that pbp notified all the "last time" participants...but obviously he did not, as I did not get one. This is a video game of Wikiprocessery.TCO (talk) 06:44, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wonder all you like, but you'll not find evidence of my being canvassed because I wasn't, and that accusation is just bad-faith ad-hom in lieu of an actual policy-based reason for keeping this POV-fest. As has been pointed out, PBP didn't nominate the article for deletion last time and is free, per policy, to nominate an article again where an AFD ended in no consensus (which is exactly what happened) and there's no requirement for him to canvass previous participants. Stalwart111 07:05, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree; this is completely bad-faith by TCO. I never notify anyone of deletion discussions (except the author when I use Twinkle), and as Stalwart notes, I don't have to. It's worth noting that many of the deletion votes are people that didn't even participate. I believe I used the word "viable" rather than "mechanical", and my don't have to be thoughtful since they are in line with the policies and guidelines vis-a-vis what an article of this type should be likes. TCO's comments are essentially a personal attack, are rife with inaccuracies, and should probably be disregarded p b p 14:44, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I concur that TCO is wrong in crying canvassing, but what kind of spectacular doublethink makes you spew nonsense canvassing accusations in the nomination and then scream "bad-faith"! when other users follow your example, Pbp? -- cyclopia^speak! 14:59, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because Dream Focus posted the AfD to ARS and I didn't post it to any people's talk pages or noticeboards, perhaps? p b p 15:02, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By my count, most of the people who came to this via ARS !voted delete, so trying to characterize that as canvassing seems quite weak. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:13, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Given that posting to ARS is no more canvassing than posting to any noticeboard or wikiproject, this is not an answer, Pbp. -- cyclopia^speak! 15:15, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Incompatible with WP:NPOV. Inclusion criteria are far too subjective. ‑Scottywong | babble _ 21:55, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Never having understood integrity, and strenuously doubting its very existence, I suspect that a list of examples with references applying the label may provide encyclopedic assistance. - Winterst (talk) 11:10, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Um, saying something is "encyclopedic" or "unencyclopedic" is not in of itself a reason for keeping or deleting something p b p 15:32, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I don't quite think that's the definition of "encyclopedic" we use around here - WP:Encyclopedic redirects to WP:NOT. See also WP:UNENCYC. Ansh666 18:15, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete List is fundamentally, inescapably non-neutral. Any reliable source that asserts a given politician is renowned for their integrity may be just as easily disputed by another equally reliable source, in which case a list that by its nature asserts that individuals in the list are "renowned for their integrity" is a non-neutral list. The list is thus inevitably subjective. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 16:30, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A very subjective inclusion criteria, and the concept of listing "men of integrity" also feels kind of outdated (as illustrated by the Little George and cherry tree anectote). The article says Mommsen (a 19th century historian) wrote something on this, which I can believe, but I don't think it's an approach that's common among modern historians and political scientists. As such it doesn`t meet the criteria for a stand-alone list. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 16:56, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Criteria for inclusion on this list is varied based on the quotes from the sources. Cited sources speak well of the mentioned leaders, but whether these statements confer or constitute "integrity" is unclear. There doesn't appear to be a viable move or merge alternative for this content, so I therefore recommend deletion. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 20:51, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Personally and subjectively, I would keep this list, but the consensus objectively is to delete such ill-definable lists. Bearian (talk) 16:40, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Carrite and Kikichugirl. GregJackP Boomer! 16:43, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While there are some valid lists on Wikipedia with a subjective basis, such as Albums considered the greatest ever or List of films considered the worst, there is no long standing tradition of multiple reliable sources regularly publishing lists of political leaders with integrity, so I don't see how this article could ever be written to comply with WP:NPOV. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 23:20, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Jack Woodford. (non-admin closure) czar · · 18:28, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How to Make Your Friends and Murder Your Enemies

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

Fails WP:NBOOK. I thought that this was an obvious redirect as it contains only the text from the back cover of the book (possibly copyvio if it's the entire back cover), the dedication, acknowldgements, the table of contents and alternative titles considered by the author, but an editor reverted my redirect. I can't find sources meeting our criteria for notabiity. Dougweller (talk) 06:24, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Jack Woodford. While this sounds like it'd be fascinating reading in general and something I think I'll get for a family member for Christmas this year, there just isn't anything out there to show that this is really notable outside of its author. There's no coverage for this book aside from it being an offhand mention in relation to its author. I really, REALLY wish I could say otherwise since this book's writing sounds like an interesting story in and of itself, but WP:ITSINTERESTING has never been a valid rationale for keeping and not every author's book will be notable outside of them. This is a valid enough redirect to his article. On a side note, I see that many of the quotes by and about him could stand to be moved to Wikiquote. We don't really list any of these in articles, so they need to be removed. I'm not familiar with how to do that, so if anyone that is savvy about that wants to do it feel free. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:54, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 17:36, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^*poke* 03:22, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Jack Woodford - Hahaha, it does seem like a book to spark one's interest, but it doesn't have any outstanding critical reviews or historic significance and therefore fails WP:BKCRIT. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 12:31, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jack Woodford. Fails notability, but still worthy of inclusion as it's a book, perhaps consider retaining some of the information as well. kikichugirl (talk) 05:05, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Secret ^account 19:28, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Poseidon Adventure characters

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

This is an incomplete and unnecessary list created in 2010. It only describes two characters, and them mostly with a plot regurgitation. It touches on the differences from the novel and other adaptations, but the little that might be worth saving could be merged into the film article. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:58, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that characters from all instances of "The Poseidon Adventure" (novel, films, miniseries, etc.) should be included on this page. If so, then the page should be kept. Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 13:55, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge but not just this article. There's a good bit of redundancy and small articles in the topic, and these would probably be better presented in one large article--or at the very least a summary style conglomeration--that discusses the commonalities and differences between the various adaptations of the books. Still, having said that, there's no reason for outright deleting any of these that isn't precluded by WP:ATD. Jclemens (talk) 05:21, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 18:21, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 02:11, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Of course the characters in this famous movie are notable, but they can easily be covered in the main article.Kitfoxxe (talk) 04:00, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like an abandoned project as it only mentions two characters. Please note If this closes as delete you will need to delete the "Characters" link in the {{The Poseidon Adventure}} just to be thorough. MarnetteD | Talk 02:49, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) czar · · 18:32, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thadia

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

Unreferenced and does not turn up in any search Joostik (talk) 11:57, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: A search for thadia village does turn up search results that prove its existence. SL93 (talk) 16:21, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The geographic coordinates in the article appear to have been incorrect, as they disagreed with the location described in the article's text (in Morang District, along the Mahendra Highway), so I've emended them. Also, the more common spelling seems to be "Thadiya", used in the text, rather than "Thadia", used as the title—as is seen in this article, for instance. Deor (talk) 14:58, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 18:26, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 02:10, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NPLACE. Deor (talk) 02:16, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:03, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Julius Wu

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

Non-notable animation director. Beerest355 Talk 18:33, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly passes the long established notability requirements for directors, having played a key part in the creation of a notable work. See WP:ENTERTAINER. A lot of those episodes have their own articles already, since they've been proven to be notable by Wikipedia standards. Dream Focus 00:50, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article is never going to be more than a list of credits and some trivial things. Satisfying one criteria out of those doesn't guarantee notability. Beerest355 Talk 02:39, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whether anyone takes time to expand the article or not is irrelevant. That isn't a valid reason to delete it. WP:NOTABILITY states "A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets the general notability guideline below, and is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy. A topic is also presumed notable if it meets the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right." So meeting the subject-specific guideline for people means the guy is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. Dream Focus 09:37, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He is a working animation director. As per creative point 3 referenced above, it states "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." I can find no evidence that the episodes he has directed have had such coverage to establish him as meeting this criteria. -- Whpq (talk) 15:55, 5 July 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, L Faraone 02:09, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While there may not be an abundance of substantial coverage easily available to us online, I agree with DreamFocus that work on these very notable projects establishes notability. Candleabracadabra (talk) 16:31, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very notable? Really? These are just television episodes. There's not really much special about them, as Whpq pointed out. Beerest355 Talk 22:16, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails ENT and GNG, and notability is not inherited from notable shows. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:35, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Really the applicable guideline here is WP:CREATIVE for creative professionals including artists and filmmakers. Wu fits this better than WP:ENT which is for actors etc. While the bar for wp:creative is higher, having directed 11 out of 210 Family Guy episodes seems to me like "..a major role in co-creating...a collective body of work, that has been the subject of ...multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." It's close, but it passes in my book. The article does need proper sourcing, but that's not a reason for deletion. -Wine Guy~Talk 23:17, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "Creative" is in the eye of the beholder. Personally, I think the stuff he's directed is neither art nor memorable, even as TV situation comedy, and furthermore, the critics seem to agree with me. However, good taste is not one of the factors for notability of creative persons. FOX-TV has had a lot of crap on it, and this guy made a bunch of that crap, so yeah, he's notable. Bearian (talk) 16:59, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 05:03, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Duct-Tape (short)

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

Per WP:BALL - about a future film that's yet to be produced. No notability asserted. Dusti^*poke* 02:00, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No indication of notability. Looks to be part of an advertising spree; see Mark Rattenbury (already nominated for speedy) and Mark (Duct-Tape) (already PRODed). I might even go speedy delete as advertising, actually, having seen those other two. Ignatz mice•talk 02:52, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:25, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find any independent reliable sources. (BTW, I redirected the Mark article to this article.) —teb728 t c 03:30, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I had PRODed it just after Dusti AfD'd it for the reason mentioned by TEB728. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 04:10, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete per failing WP:NFF. Project also appears to fail WP:V. Kindest thing we might suppose is that this is simply TOO SOON. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:55, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 20:31, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mystera Magazine

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

Article fails WP:ORG. No references apart from main page. Seems to be advertising article for newly created Swiss holistic well-being site. Magazine seems to be very very new. scope_creep 22:32, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 01:56, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of attained notability, whether as magazine or website. AllyD (talk) 06:12, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability and I can't find substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 17:29, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 to delete. AfD is not the venue to discuss a merger or move of perfectly notable material, but it was done, so that's it. The discussion has gone on for over two weeks, without any consensus to delete this material from the encyclopedia. Whoever wants to be bold can move or merge the material, without further discussion as far as I'm concerned. Bearian (talk) 17:04, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Travel 2.0

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

This term doesn't seem to have caught on as a concept the way, say, "Enterprise 2.0" has. Yes, there are a few references that use the term "Travel 2.0", but that's to be expected - the same as you can find phrases like "Comedy 2.0" or "Food 2.0" or "Shopping 2.0", etc. "Travel 2.0" seems to mean nothing more than websites for travelers, plus perhaps technologies like GPS. The vague, essay-like text currently in the article I think is further proof that there's no real body of thinking behind this term. Yaron K. (talk) 23:20, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has been renamed to Travel in the internet age. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:21, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NEO. Andrew³²⁷ 13:14, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Looks fairly decent article at first glance. NSlights (talk) 06:43, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 01:54, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but possibly rename. The subject of tourism in the age of Web 2.0 content, social networks, online review sites, etc, has received a lot of coverage[10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20], even if the name Travel 2.0 doesn't have as much usage. Wikipedia articles are about concepts, not (usually) names. It doesn't overlap with the sections on recent developments or latest trends in Tourism, so this is non-duplicative coverage of a big topic that is significant in business terms (tourism is one of the world's biggest industries). --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:15, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Uncertain as to the present title (maybe Travel in the internet age would be better?), but the subject covered is manifestly notable. Candleabracadabra (talk) 17:00, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - it looks like you moved "Travel 2.0" to "Travel in the internet age". I agree that that's a better name, in that it doesn't claim that its title is a notable term - but for what it's worth, there's already the article travel website, that holds (or can hold) all the relevant information about the ways people can use the web for booking/reviews/etc. One could argue that there should be a merge of this article to "travel website" (or something similar), but personally, I still think deletion is the way to go. Looking over the "Travel 2.0"/"Travel in the internet age" article, I see exactly one sentence that's encyclopedic and worth keeping: "Roughly two-thirds of Americans research and plan travel online and approximately the same amount book online as well." All the rest just reads like a meandering essay to me. Yaron K. (talk) 03:38, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A merge/ redirect is probably worth considering. The article does seem to be a little heavy on the advocacy for a neologism. As long as the subject matter is covered appropriately I don't have a problem with how it's titled. I still oppose deletion. I don't think the history should be lost. It's worth at least noting the terminology and maybe the bit you note wherever "travel in the internet age" is covered. Candleabracadabra (talk) 04:13, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 16:57, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Socialist Offensive

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

A fringe left-wing group that the almighty Google knows little about. Liquid Water 20:29, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:45, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:45, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:46, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If it is true that they were formally expelled from the Norwegian Labour Party's youth wing that points toward notability, because such things tend to generate controversy and some publicity. Given the period during which it is suggested that they operated Google would not necessarily be the best source of information. This does need a Norwegian speaker with access to relevant sources and preferably some knowledge of the politics of the period to advise. --AJHingston (talk) 22:16, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The citation confirms that they were expelled from the youth wing, but I doubt that it can be called a WP:RS. This article about Marit Nybakk mentions "Sosialistisk offensiv" like the readers should know what it is, that is another point toward notability isn't it? Mentoz86 (talk) 12:22, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. According to a Master degree thesis "Studentsamskipnaden i Oslo- Studentens hjertebarn?", Sosialistisk Offensiv was the name used by the list/coalition for AUF in student elections at the University of Oslo in the 70s. Baard Meidell Johannesen who was active in student politics at that time (now in NHO), also notes that AUF called themselves Sosialistisk Offensiv. The above mentioned master thesis also lists Øystein Njaal. Nordang as chair of SiO 1978-80, representing Sosialistisk Offensiv. - I think the whole thing is a bit messy and probably not very important, but it is a small part of the history of AUF and student politics at the University of Oslo (maybe more places). Whether they merit their own article on Wikipedia, I dunno. Store norske leksikon does not have an entry on it, neither does Pax Leksikon. As Mentoz mentions the only curent source is not a reliable one. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 14:02, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 01:51, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above discussion indicating lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 16:19, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Insufficient sources and in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:46, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Consensus here is clearly for the article to be retained. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:13, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brew City Shooter Supply

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

The article itself doesn't bother to make a claim to notability, but this shop was once in the news. It was formally called "Badger Guns." In 2010, the Brady Center center named it the No. 1 shop in the U.S. that sold guns to criminals.[21] It no longer sells guns. I think this is covered under WP:NOTNEWS and WP:ONEEVENT. 2NewEvolution1 (talk) 03:05, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

strong/speedy keep A local gun store, mentioned by the brady campaign, the wall street journal, MSNBC, and multiple books [22] [23] and multiple scholarly articles [24] [25] Not sure what version of WP:GNG the nominator is thinking of here... At a minimum a WP:BEFORE failure, including not reading the multiple refs already in the article. Gaijin42 (talk) 03:21, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's pretty rare for one gun shop in a community to be called out for selling crime guns in a city, but this is definitely one and a source of tension in Milwaukee. Subject has been in the news multiple times based on just gun traces, and for their many name changes and ownership shuffles to stay in business. Sourcing is not an issue, and nominator stunted nomination by adding another source in their nom. Nate • (chatter) 03:57, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:44, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 16:21, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per reasons stated above, although I know of three others that meet this criteria.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 21:55, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per above. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 23:04, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
comment As all !votes have been keep, and Nominator has now been blocked as a sockpuppet who was wikihounding me, which makes this eligible for speedy close as bad faith, if someone cares to do so. Gaijin42 (talk) 23:06, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per this blanking edit; user clearly made non-controversial edits solely to get auto-confirmed status and then start on this. Not closing this myself though. Nate • (chatter) 02:37, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:29, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reichmuth & Co

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

Fails WP:CORP. None of the references have in depth coverage on the bank. There are many references on the web to this, but all are related to a single event, the shenanigans around Bernard Madoff; or are passing mentions. There are some press releases and interviews with company officers but they aren't independent. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:53, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly meets GNG. The assertions in the nomination are incorrect. There are a number of articles (albeit primarily in languages other than English) devoted to coverage of the bank, that are far more than passing mentions. Many of the references do not relate to the series of events concerning the investment in Madoff, the loss, and subsequent events relating thereto. Plus, this is the first private bank created in Switzerland in 80 years, one of only 12 Swiss unlimited liability banks, and referred to in the RSs as a prominent major player among Swiss hedge funds. It has billions of dollars of assets under management -- even post-Madoff. Despite the famed Swiss private bank code of secrecy, more than enough has been written on this bank. Clearly notable.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:56, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:29, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:40, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appears to be somewhat notable per guidelines. Candleabracadabra (talk) 16:24, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep major internationally known bank.'DGG (at NYPL) (talk) 18:54, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Secret ^account 19:55, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GameKnot

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

Article contains no assertion of notability. Toccata quarta (talk) 16:57, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:59, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:59, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep, because there is quite some results in the Google News Archive search. EditorE (talk) 21:26, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All those sources appear to contain nothing more than just passing references to GameKnot. Can you show any that discuss primarily GameKnot? Toccata quarta (talk) 04:09, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there are no secondary sources to establish notability. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 02:08, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:20, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:38, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article has no sources that are independent of the subject two weeks after the AFD nomination. If it is possible for the article to meet WP:GNG requirements, no one has stepped up to demonstrate it yet. Quale (talk) 04:30, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As noted above, there is ample coverage in the Google News archive including several NYT articles.Candleabracadabra (talk) 16:52, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any sources that discuss primarily GameKnot? The ones I saw contained only passing mentions. Toccata quarta (talk) 17:34, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't have any luck finding sources at all. All I saw in the GNews search was GameKnot's own website. 069952497a (U-T-C-E) 00:54, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

True, it's pretty thin once you dig down. :( Candleabracadabra (talk) 01:09, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found no real sources after a Google search. 069952497a (U-T-C-E) 19:14, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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--Ymblanter (talk) 07:15, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Un pecado por mes

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

Fails WP:NF and WP:GNG Uberaccount (talk) 03:41, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 06:29, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 06:30, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've given the article a few tweaks, and will await input from Wikipedians able to find and offer reviews in 65 year-old Argentinian newspapers. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:11, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 00:16, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:33, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable Argentinian film with notable participants. Released on DVD in last several years. Candleabracadabra (talk) 16:46, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, 160 hits in google books, http://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&hl=sv&q=%22Un+Pecado+Por+Mes%22 --Soman (talk) 11:12, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite (talk) 08:17, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blank Label Comics

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

This now defunct collective of webcomics was always less notable than the individual webcomics that it was made of. The collective itself (rather than the member comics acting independently) seems not to have done much to pass WP:42. LukeSurl^{t c} 09:59, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Google Books suggests the term may be mentioned in few works; discounting printed Wikipedia spamforks, search for "Blank Label Comics" still suggests a dozen or so sources to review. The mention may be simply passing, but nonetheless I'd like to see somebody check at least T. Campbell (2006). A History of Web Comics, V 1.0: The Golden Age: 1993-2005. Antarctic Press. ISBN 978-0-9768043-9-0. Retrieved 24 June 2013. . --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:55, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 00:13, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:31, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per nom. Association composed of notable elements. Seems worth including for posterity. How would deleting it improve the encyclopedia? Candleabracadabra (talk) 16:45, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Since http://www.blanklabelcomics.com/ went down the content of this article is effectively non-verifiable. --LukeSurl^{t c} 17:13, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The webcomics are notable, not this label. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 18:07, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ^King Jakob _C2 11:03, 16 July 2013 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Timo Kahlen

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

Escalating from prod. Not a single award mentioned in text appears notable. Big list of external links none of which look mainstream. A few references cited in a book format, none of which I can verify, and which could well be just exhibition uncatalogued or such. Definitely needs opinion from a German speaker to verify sources/comment on notability in German-language net. A German speaker may want to AfD de:Timo Kahlen to get input from de Wiki editors. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:38, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 00:11, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While the article can do with some sorting the references from the German counterpart convinced me of its notability. While I did not remember the name of the artist I certainly can remember the presscoverage of the cleaner incident in Amberg. Agathoclea (talk) 13:53, 7 July 2013 (UTC) P.S.: de:Deutscher Klangkunst-Preis seems relevant on deWiki Agathoclea (talk) 13:58, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:29, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per above discussion indicating substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 16:26, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. with no prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) czar · · 18:40, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vladimir Nasedkin

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

Escalating from prod. Not a single award mentioned in text appears notable. No inline cites. Big list of a lot of stuff, none of which look mainstream; that includes a long list of "bibliography" which likely is heavily composed of a passing mention in tiny circulation exhibition catalogs or such. Needs opinion from a Russian speaker to verify sources/comment on notability in Russian-language net. Can't verify if a ru wiki article exists as the creator did not add the subject name in Cyrillic. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:49, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 00:09, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:28, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per exhibitions and breadth of showings at institutions. A review by a Russian editor would certainly be helpful. Candleabracadabra (talk) 16:43, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:45, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Illinois Valley Community Hospital

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

Non-notable local hospital. Insufficient independent sources from which to draw a verifiable article. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:28, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:45, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:45, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:46, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 00:00, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:23, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:ORG. the gnews coverage is passing. and not all hospitals are notable. LibStar (talk) 05:54, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest possible keep Hospital was formed from two historic and notable hospitals. This is an important subject to the community's history. Should not be deleted. Article can certainly be improved. Candleabracadabra (talk) 16:51, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

strongest possible keep? I would have saved that for water or Barack Obama. LibStar (talk) 01:30, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment The article can only be improved if sources can be found from which to improve it. I was unable to find any. If Candleabracadabra (nice name, by the way!) is more successful than I, I will applaud xyr efforts. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:54, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately many articles from the past 100 - 126 years aren't available online. But I am sure the libraries in Peru can assist. I just don't see that there's any question that a community's major hospitals (now joined into one) are nonnotable. How many births, deaths, etc. have taken place there? How many victims of major accidents and crimes in the area have been taken to the hospitals (there are plenty of sources covering some of these instances from more recent events). And then there are articles like [25,000 Watch 2,500 Nurses Stage Parade‎] from the Chicago Tribune May 22, 1954 about how "the nursing nuns from St. Mary's hospital of La Salle county" attracted attention. Unfortunately it's behind a paywall. But we know that lots of these sources exist. There are also articles like this one about legislative impacts on the hospital. There is also the architectural history to consider. Etc. etc. Candleabracadabra (talk) 17:38, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Unfortunately, the kind of coverage Candleabracadabra is discussing are mere mentions in passing. When a news report tells of a victim being brought to a hospital for treatment, or that nurses from a hospital are on parade, that report rarely gives an in-depth history of the hospital. Without such in-depth coverage, from what sources are we to draw verifiable information about the hospital? WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:49, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not talking about mere mentions. I'm talking about substantial coverage that isn't available online. Candleabracadabra (talk) 17:51, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a postcard of one of the two historic hospitals covered in the article and here is just one example of the substantial coverage the hospital has received. There's 126 years worth and the subject shouldn't be discriminated against just because WikiDan can't be bothered to access the many offline sources available in libraries. Candleabracadabra (talk) 18:16, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Run of the mill hospital. Sources are local and do not cover the hospital substantially enough. If other sources can be found in libraries, then this article can be recreated. Beerest355 Talk 22:35, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 20:30, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Armstrong chamberlin

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

Article seems to fail WP:ORG. 2 of the 4 references don't work, the 3rd is a very small mention and the last is a single line on a web page. Seems to assert NN. scope_creep 00:20, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:20, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:20, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:20, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete appears to be WP:ADV, and this is not a place for free advertising.--Paul McDonald (talk)
Delete Small firm that does not appear to meet notability criteria. Candleabracadabra (talk) 16:30, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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] ttp://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/engineering/news/inside-the-future-how-popmech-predicted-the-next-110-years-14831802

[2] ttp://www.thestatenislandfamily.com/staten-island-mama-melissa-chapman/

[3] ttp://www.entrepreneur.com/article/187596

[1]

[2]

[3]