Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 May 8

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 7 May	9 May >

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. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:39, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neal submachine gun

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

This was simply a patent that was filed, no gun was ever produced by this name or following its description. The only source is the patent. I searched for sources and found nothing beyond the patentt. Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 23:57, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Patent is not an RS for meeting GNG, and the single guns.com article doesn't demonstrate notability either. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:57, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete...As I recall, the Neal submachine gun has been deleted before for the reasons stated above...ie. a patent is not firearm, none were made, no reliable sources, etc. Also, the editor who created this article has made no other edits. All of this, leads me to question the articles validity. --RAF910 (talk) 00:23, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 Kidz Bop#Compilation_albums. (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 05:15, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kidz Bop Party Pop!

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

Article was created by Shaun290, a new user. I helped edit the page with the correct templates and such, but another user attempted to redirect the article to another page. Given that the notability status is in question, I am opening an AFD discussion so we can reach a consensus as to whether the article should be merged, redirected, or deleted. NintendoFan (Talk, Contribs) 23:47, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Has it charted? I can't find any evidence that it has, but maybe the charts haven't been updated yet. I dunno. Move it to draft space, maybe? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:07, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The album features two songs that charted, such as Who Let the Dogs Out? by Baha Men from 2000 and Crazy Frog's Axel F from 2005. NintendoFan (Talk, Contribs) 09:19, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Except that these are covers of those songs. But a compilation of notable songs wouldn't make the compilation itself notable anyway. There is a small blurb in a review oon Allmusic but if that's it, that surely does not indicate "significant coverage". Redirect to Kids Bop. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 23:14, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kidz Bop, where this title is listed in the "Compilation albums" subsection. I'm unable to find significant coverage for this release to warrant a standalone article; does not appear to meet WP:NALBUMS. Gongshow talk 02:23, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 Odilon Redon. Naturally, how much gets merged can be decided by consensus on the target slakr^\ talk / 02:03, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Christ (Lithograph)

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

This is a really nice article but unfortunately, there is actually next to nothing about the artwork itself that has references - nothing to show that this artwork has notability and significant coverage to justify a standalone article on it. It is more an essay on Redon, his life, and his artwork, such as is already on Odilon Redon, than about the artwork itself. I've had a quick search and see some references to the prints, but little specifically on the particular Christ lithograph in question (and Redon did several Christ prints, making it tough to verify which one is being discussed in some of the hits.) Mabalu (talk) 23:42, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or possibly merge to Odilon Redon, with substantial trimming). Much of the article is unrelated to the work, and the content that actually describes it is completely unsourced aesthetic descriptions, which violate WP:OR. --Animalparty-- (talk) 00:36, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge some to Odilon Redon, though in fact any work by a major artist like Redon is likely to pass WP:N, even if this doesn't emerge from a quick google search. I very much doubt there is any OR here - copyvio or just poor referencing to sources used is far more likely. The editor does not understand the subject very well; obviously the SF museum has only 1 copy of this print, and does not need mentioning. But some of the biographical stuff is sufficiently well-refed to be useful to add. Johnbod (talk) 12:38, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge, either is fine, but why delete? This is a notable and historic piece of art. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 18:55, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:40, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cherussery Ahmed Kutty Musliyar

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

Stumbled across, removed some long standing vandalism, noticed the only sources were blogs. Looked around found a couple of passing mentions in books but nothing that resembled significant coverage. Appears to fail WP:GNG Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:27, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. G S Palmer (talk) 00:42, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Concur - delete - I PRODded this a while ago. Still question notability. Go Phightins! 01:17, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. Still insufficient evidence of notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:19, 9 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete and salt. After it has gone through all the past contention over notability (and failed the test previously) I am unwilling to give it the benefit of the doubt that more acceptable sources can be found. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:08, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt but encourage editors who believe they have new non-blog sources to write a Draft. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:50, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the same reasons I stated in the second AfD, salt because the subject isn't likely to suddenly become notable and this shouldn't be recreated over and over again. MezzoMezzo (talk) 14:32, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 Shewa. slakr^\ talk / 02:26, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Selale

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

Doesn't appear to meet the noteability criteria for inclusion Amortias (T)(C) 22:56, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethiopia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Although WP:GEOLAND and WP:MAPOUTCOMES seem to favor keeping, I think it makes more sense to merge this single sentence into Shewa and leave a redirect. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:57, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Chris Troutman. It this was a province, we ought to hve somethign on it, even if only a redirect. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:29, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:42, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Reuting

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

Fails WP:BIO. Tried to help article meet notability threshold, but the TechCrunch Article is only a brief mention of her and focuses on her startup. She's also been interviewed by some non-notable blogs, but I think the page falls short of meeting Wikipedia standards. EBstrunk18 (talk) 22:53, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The sourcing stinks, and we need a lot more for WP:BLP. It's not clear whether she's an attorney, so this article may place her at risk legally; in fact, her own website suggests consulting an attorney in one's state. Bearian (talk) 17:28, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:44, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jay-P

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

While the article features an impressive 35 references, those few among them which actually mention Jay-P are not reliable. There's no indication of meeting WP:MUSIC. A Google search found nothing of use. Huon (talk) 22:45, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find any real sources either, not amongst the references and not on Google. I daren't even go check out some of the references — this and this — as they give me an "untrusted connection" warning. Bishonen | talk 23:14, 11 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. L Faraone 21:11, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Azriel Haikin

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

Non-notable person. One passing reference in one text does not make one notable. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:30, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I checked the references and its actually Chaikin. Plus, I also found second reference in Jewish Press, but I afraid it wont save it from being deleted.--Mishae (talk) 22:51, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this non-notable Shaliach (Chabad) who does not even meet the notability requirements for Category:Chabad-Lubavitch emissaries. There are hundreds of such minor Chabad rabbis with grandiose titles that inflate their importance. Maybe in twenty years time when he becomes truly notable and well-known or writes a genuine major scholarly work he can have his own article. For now this is just a fluff piece that goes against WP:NOTFACEBOOK. Also kindly note that Wikipedia is not Chabad.org. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 07:57, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. There are apparently 3 Chief Rabbis of Ukraine and Azriel Chaikin is one of them. However, there is no independent coverage other than Chabad news sites. The main Chief Rabbi, Yaakov Bleich, is far more well known. We'll leave the mention of him on the latter page. Yoninah (talk) 11:27, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: Checking non-Chabad sources, I get the impression that Rabbi Chaikin was fairly notable in the pre-Internet era, during his tenure as the Chief Rabbi of Copenhagen and later of Brussels. This Ha-Maor article from 1970 devotes several paragraphs to Chaikin's activities in Brussels; this brief mention in Ha-Maor (1968), describes him as the rabbi of Copenhagen and de facto chief rabbi of Scandinavia. I suppose contemporary Jewish newspapers had more extensive coverage (Ha-Maor is a rabbinic journal, not a newspaper) which would make him notable. It is only in the 21st century that he has held less prestigious positions (chief rabbi of a country that has another chief rabbi). Incidentally, contemporary sources refer to Chaikin as the former chief rabbi of Ukraine; it appears he left Ukraine in 2009. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 17:59, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Here is a Slate article describing the confusing state of the chief rabbinate of Ukraine, though I am not sure how accurate it is—the author is not aware that Chaikin left Ukraine some 5 years earlier. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 18:13, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, position is uncertain, per WP:V. Given that, the article says zip, zero, nada, in the way of secondary analysis.Abductive (reasoning) 16:53, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Abductive: What is (partially) unverifiable is one point in his fifty-year long career. There are adequate sources for his tenure in Agadir (not provided above), Copenhagen and Brussels, as I wrote above, from reliable, independent sources which include some secondary analysis. (I am not required to actually add it to the article, only to demonstrate that it exists.) הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 18:09, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - The general consensus is that one can cobble together an article about a person from primary sources, but without the presence of secondary analysis it should be deleted. There are millions upon millions of people who have been mentioned in newspaper articles, but only a tiny fraction of them are notable. Abductive (reasoning) 18:20, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:46, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rong Xiang Xu

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

Non-notable person. None of the independent sources give in-depth coverage of this person. The last remanent of a walled-garden of articles previously discussed at Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_38#Rongxiang_Xu. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:53, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not much impact on scientific literature. Law suit is interesting but WP:BLP1E. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:22, 9 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete as not notable and lacking reliable sources. Rincewind42 (talk) 15:12, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough in-depth, independent coverage to meet WP:GNG, nor do they appear to meet WP:PROF. Yobol (talk) 17:58, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Rong Xiang Xu has been covered in multiple sources in accordance with Wikipedia's Biography Notability criteria. At minimal, there are enough source for the benefit of the doubt that he is "notable" in certain spheres. There are a number of sources which are in Chinese which should be considered. Rong Xiang Xu has made contributions to the study of medicine and those should be noted. His biography may require additional work, but his biography should not be deleted as others have the right to read his biography and make their own conclusions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waverider76 (talk • contribs) 18:40, 14 May 2014 (UTC) — Waverider76 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Please look at WP:LOTSOFSOURCES. It is insufficient in an AfD to say there are lots of sources without naming them. As noted above, several editors have searched for reliable sources and couldn't find any. If you have some source that we may have missed then you need to give that source—either here or in the article—so that we can asses the facts. Note that because this article is a biography of living person it is held very strictly to the verifiability test which it currently fails. Rincewind42 (talk) 00:23, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The existing references are extremely weak and nowhere near the reliability threshold for a biography of a living person. According to The Scientist (Reference #9) "Xu has not published any of his purported work on stem cells in peer-reviewed journals listed in PubMed", which is an immediate red flag for me. Although the Chinese Medical Doctor Association reference looks good at first glance (a .org website is always a good sign), this is no more than a passing mention of Xu in a long list of around 30 directors. Similarly, the "Meeting Transcript of the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors" is undermined by Xu's introduction being followed by one of the participants asking if anyone can find a home for a stray chihuahua(!), which seriously questions the source's credibiilty. I'm not going to go through the other references individually but suffice to say they do nothing to establish notability. Xu's theories appear to be fringe and thereby contrary to Neutral point of view, No original research, and Verifiability. Philg88 ^♦talk 06:35, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. (soft) slakr^\ talk / 02:32, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Low Carbon Vehicle Event

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

Fails notability, single editor and use of primary sources suggests advertising Peaky76 (talk) 20:13, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article and page behind company who runs the event created by same user - user is only major editor on both pages so is looking like WP:NOTADVERTISING isn't being adhered to Amortias (T)(C) 20:32, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above - Reads more like an advert than an encyclopaedic article. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 18:02, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep see some WP:OSTRISH in here. It has received coverage from mainstream media BBC,Another BBC, and another BBC just because sources are not in the article does not mean we cannot add them reading like an advert means clean up not delete. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 20:39, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. One keep !vote and no delete !vote other than nominator plus nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Anupmehra -Let's talk! 05:56, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For the Sake of Mahdi (film)

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

Does not appear to meet the notability guidelines for film. Links in References are not in English, and so cannot be verified. One reference is to a database, another is to a non-independent source. Prof. Mc (talk) 19:54, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

English as a credible source is added to the film.Kalame10 (talk) 22:21, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Short title 1:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Short title 2:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Comment: I would urge thenominator to read WP:NONENG to understand that sources, specially for an Arabic film not released in the USA, need not be in English. And toward his inability read the sources, I would suggest he use one of the many translators available online, and perhaps WP:AGF that they verify the article as required unless able to show that they do not. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 04:51, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We have Fars News and Farhang News and Payvand News and the film is written of AND sourced on the Persioan Wikipedia. We have valid sources, even if non-English. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:03, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator Happy to withdraw this as per advice of @MichaelQSchmidt:.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. slakr^\ talk / 02:32, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ashna Zaveri

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

Falls under too soon-has yet to be in anything, and her debut film is in post production. Wgolf (talk) 19:49, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reference added. User:Rameshkru7 (Talk to me!) 08:48, 9 May 2014 (IST)

Delete Does not pass WP:NACTOR. Obvious delete. Harsh (talk) 17:09, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agreed, the actress is not notable enough. LokeshRavindranathan 20:34, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:12, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

David A. King (attorney)

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

All of the sourced cited in the article are either self-published, user-generated, or routine coverage and do not establish notability. If this candidate gets through the primary he may obtain significant enough coverage to establish notability, but for now it appears WP:TOOSOON. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 19:46, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Concur. --Weazie (talk) 17:01, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - there's no evidence he passes either WP:POLITICIAN or as a lawyer; see User:Bearian/Standards#Non-notability. Bearian (talk) 17:31, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the topic is included at California Attorney General election, 2014, so the topic is not insignificant. Also, the wp:notability of the topic is currently in flux. It is not our WP:ATD policy to delete the article or the topic for non-nobility, rather to redirect. Unscintillating (talk) 22:29, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

O.K., then, redirect. Bearian (talk) 19:18, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:POLITICIAN or any other guideline; primary purpose seems to be as an assist in his campaign for the election coming up a few weeks. "Look, he's got a Wikipedia article." <soapbox>We really need a Speedy Deletion category for election campaign sleaze tactics.</soapbox>. TJRC (talk) 03:59, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't agree about the sleaze, and having worked some on the article I believe that this is a respectable candidate. The reason that your argument is not policy based is because the future-event article [California Attorney General election, 2014] exists in mainspace, and this topic therefore merits inclusion as a redirect in the encyclopedia as per our policy WP:ATD. The source of the problem is that there is no purpose in an encyclopedia to have mainspace articles about future events. This is a chronic problem that routinely invites promotion. Instead of speedy delete, what I think is needed is a speedy incubate until 15 Nov 2014 for the future event. Then this bio would no longer have a policy-based claim for inclusion in mainspace. Unscintillating (talk) 05:30, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Incubation is for articles that need further editing to improve their quality. WP:No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability. I wouldn't be opposed to an R with possibilities redirect. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 13:01, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the election has an article — which is in no way a violation of our rules, as the election campaign is current and ongoing — does not mean that every person whose name happens to be mentioned in it automatically qualifies for their own standalone BLP. Our policies around political candidates in fact are quite clear that a person does not qualify for an article just for being a candidate in an election (and even less for being a candidate in a primary that they haven't won yet) — but rather, with exceedingly rare exceptions for people who somehow explode into national news, the candidate must actually win the election to qualify for an article on here. Delete, without prejudice against recreation if he wins in November; if you want to redirect him to the article on the election he's running in, then you still have the option of doing that from a redlink. If he does win, furthermore, then we have the option of restoring the old article if desired — so we don't have to keep the old edit history visible in anticipation either. Bearcat (talk) 22:31, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This article is pure spam for a non-notable attorney. Redirect to the election he is running in, per usual practice. If you want to delete the article and then create the redirect (so as to get rid of the spammy history) that is OK with me.--MelanieN (talk) 01:25, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This article has been cleaned up to the point where all controversial claims now have satisfactory citations. It is in no way a puff piece or "campaign sleaze." It does not blindly trumpet successes of the candidate and in fact references the candidate's criticism in multiple publications. The topic of this article has had no less than six articles about him published by independent sources (these six are all cited in the article). This thereby establishes notability. He is also an author that has himself published several articles, some of which are also cited in this article. He has been recognized not merely for being a candidate in the Attorney General race but for his authorship, 501(c)(3), the congressional elections case he won (also a topic on Wikipedia), and for serving on the Regional Water Board. It is also not irrelevant that he is running for attorney general. He is certainly one of the most likely candidates to continue on to the general, and has received considerable press for his campaign. Furthermore, Wikipedia is meant to serve as a source of information to the public. It can be a useful resource in elections and for various other reasons. I would hate to see this article deleted for reasons of political bias and prevent the spread of information for which Wikipedia was formed.Aspencoons (talk) 21:18, 13 May 2014 (UTC)Aspencoons 14:20, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability does not require a minimum of six articles as you claim. Furthermore, the fact that he edits a news blog and serves on a water board doesn't make him notable either. He certainly hasn't received "considerable press for his campaign" either. In fact, a news search turns up very little on his campaign. Tiller54 (talk) 21:28, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:POLITICIAN, as noted above. Tiller54 (talk) 21:28, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:17, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Erik Ron

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

I see no evidence that this person is notable. The majority of the "references" are links to allmusic, which in this case doesn't verify more than that the person was an engineer on a number of albums. Some engineers are notable, some are not--but being an engineer on a certain number of projects of a certain size (or however we'd go) does not yet make a person notable by our standards, and in this case the GNG is clearly not passed. In addition, this sad article is little more than a kind of resume, at best. Drmies (talk) 21:23, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see how this person is notable from the sources listed. They're mostly from Allmusic, and a google search mostly just showed his social media accounts. I agree that this is pretty much a resume. --Kbabej (talk) 18:00, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 17:46, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

j⚛e decker[[User talk:Joe Decker| It is ridiculous that this page was deleted. This page was created as a reference for people interested to look up said producer's work. It may be no different than any other search engine, but there are many examples of producers that have very similar pages with similar levels of notoriety. Please restore page to original state as it is the public's right to have referenced information. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.154.10.86 (talk) 09:50, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:26, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Acrobits Groundwire

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

This article is about a VoIP client that fails our general notability guildeine as well as WP:WEB as it hasn't received significant coverage in multiple, reliable sources, nor has it made a significant impact in its field. Them From Space 18:17, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dialectric (talk) 18:18, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - software article of unclear notability, lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. Page only has 2 refs: Voipmonitor.net is regurgitated press release, and the OnSip.com on its own is not sufficient to establish notability. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 23:04, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 17:45, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Acrobits. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:39, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Did not find any independent reliable sources with significant (or any) coverage about the topic, after an admittedly fairly brief search. (I don't consider the currently-cited onsip.com or voipmonitor.net to be reliable sources). I don't agree with merging because the information currently in the article does not cite an independent reliable source, and I don't agree with redirecting the title because I just don't see the purpose of it. Agyle (talk) 22:50, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 14:16, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chinshjh

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

Completely unsourced article that seems to have no useful sourced content beyond what is already covered in the Tomb of Sher Shah Suri article. Additionally I can't find a connection between the article title and the subject. If someone else can then I will change my !vote to redirect. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:23, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:04, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:04, 23 April 2014 (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 ♔ 15:56, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Couldn't find any mentions of the article title "Chinshjh", not sure what is it. Nothing on Google web, Scholar and Books. Only results found were some Wikipedia mirror sites and Chinese historical figures. The first para repeats what's already in Tomb of Sher Shah Suri, while the second talks about Akbar's architecture...confusing. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 13:05, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 17:45, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:55, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. slakr^\ talk / 02:38, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Abhay Pandey

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

Article created by someone who is clearly closely connected to the subject's firm to promote a non-notable person. From what is claimed in the article, this person is a run-of-the-mill venture capitalist. Slashme (talk) 07:49, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Harsh (talk) 16:35, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Harsh (talk) 16:36, 22 April 2014 (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 ♔ 15:56, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails for lack of significant coverage in good sources. The Bloomberg Business Week source is merely a listing. Wikipedia is not the same as Onepercentpedia. Bearian (talk) 22:49, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with Bearian. Not Onepercentpedia. Haha Libertas80 (talk) 21:22, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 17:45, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Routine career biography suitable for his firm's website but nothing to indicate encyclopaedic notability. AllyD (talk) 05:52, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Sequoia Capital. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:35, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Will a merge not give undue emphasis on this person? He isn't even mentioned on the firm's Wikipedia page at the moment, and he features as 1 of 17 people on the Venture team subpage on the firm's own website. AllyD (talk) 05:27, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Bearian. --Bejnar (talk) 01:02, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:19, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ch Muhammad Ashraf Rehania

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

Obvious self-promotion article, created by Rehania777 (talk · contribs). From what I can see he's a district level politician, mentioned a handful times in national English-speaking media in relation with being disqualified from running as a district council candidate in 2005. But nothing that would imply notability beyond being active at the district level. Soman (talk) 08:53, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~keep~~ comment notability seems in place: "nazim" (i.e, mayor) of a major Pakistani city. The problem is lack of references, but it looks verifiable. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:46, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, but the nazim part is unsourced, and I haven't found any evidence only. Also, nazims exists on different level, for example union council (i.e. not at city level); http://jang.com.pk/important_events/localbodies-polls2005/phase2/pujab/gujrat.htm --Soman (talk) 21:49, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 21 April 2014 (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 ♔ 03:30, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 17:38, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete - Notability fails verification. The reported issues not fixed three weeks of AfD already. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:09, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete no reliable sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:52, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. No prejudice against speedy renomination, however, given the time-delay from earlier versus later comments. slakr^\ talk / 02:39, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Scooby Doo! Ghastly Goals

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

Lacks available sources. Fails WP:GNG. - Mr X 03:10, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Scooby Doo is well known and is notable. It does need some work but that cannot happen if deleted. 208.54.40.144 (talk) 16:26, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Soft Delete The special hasn't been released yet and because of that there seems to be a dearth of information concerning the special, which has resulted in actual question marks being used in place of words in the entry. The release date is in two weeks, which would suggest it passes the WP:NFF requirements, but I can't find any reliable sourcing that confirms that. However, assuming the arguments for the other Scooby direct-to-dvd specials holds, I think the author should have access to update the entry and add reliable sources when they become available, hence my thinking on deletion subject to userfication. EBstrunk18 (talk) 17:45, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Redirect until its release that is. Wgolf (talk) 02:59, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Scooby-Doo#Direct-to-video specials. You could also do its predecessors. — Wylie pedia 07:52, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 17:36, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per TOOSOON, I suggest recreating once concrete sources appear. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 18:20, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The DVD has come. Anonymous96.226.22.43 (talk) 20:37, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It was too soon 6 days ago, now is not too soon. It has been release now. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 20:48, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. L Faraone 21:12, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neale R. Stoner

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

Falls under not tennis. Wgolf (talk) 02:19, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Collegiate coaches and players are not inherently notable per Project Tennis and WP:NCOLLATH. A slew of these Cal State Fullerton persons were created in recent days including: Stan Kula, Ernest Becker, Bob Osborn, Steve White, Tom Ashley, Mark Kabacy, Brad Allen, Bill Etchegaray, and Craig Neslage. Perhaps more. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:02, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article has an unsourced claim that he coached San Diego St. to the national golf championship. If true, wouldn't that be enough to show notability?204.126.132.231 (talk) 16:18, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts would be no, but maybe check with the Golf Project and what is deemed notable. Players from the Penn State national champion volleyball team, or UCLA water polo team aren't inherently notable. They might be if they are a standout and get enough press... but the coaches? I guess it just depends. He is also an Athletic Director but are athletic directors automatically notable at wikipedia? That's out of my wikipedia comfort zone so others will have to determine that aspect. I would say they are not inherently notable. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:36, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just being a college coach doesn't make him notable. It turns out that the article's comment about leading the golf team "to the NCAA championship" meant they qualified for the tournament not that they won it.204.126.132.231 (talk) 15:46, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 17:35, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Stoner is a former NCAA Division I head men's basketball coach and athletic director. Just about any—if not every single—NCAA Division I head men's basketball coach or athletic director is going to be notable and a cursory news search for Neale shows him to be no exception. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:50, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Almost all those tiny articles are about one incident... his resignation for improper gifting. I'm not sure I'd call that notable. I guess it's for the college sports projects to let us know if being an athletic director is always notable. He ain't for anything tennis that's for sure. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:48, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He's notable for being a head athletic director at two Division I universities. There have also been articles written about him from independent, major news sources. This by the Chicago Tribune and this by the Los Angeles Times, for example, and I only searched for three minutes. Jrcla2 (talk) 13:08, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I actually found quite a number of stories about Stoner when I searched Google's historical newspaper archive (which they make very hard to find these days): here they are. It's true that many of them are from when he was Illinois AD, but that was also his highest profile job (Athletic Director at a top 25ish D1 athletic program) and a lot of his other significant coaching experience was in the 60s and 70s where it is harder to find sources online. He's been an AD at a significant University, was embroiled in a public controversy that received national press (because of the profile of that University), was a head coach in college basketball which generally gets significant coverage. I say he's notable. Rikster2 (talk) 15:24, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Division 1 basketball coaches are generally considered notable. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 11:48, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:20, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John Turk

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

Article has no independent or reliable sources and none of the claims show that he meets any notability criteria.Mdtemp (talk) 16:58, 8 May 2014 (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) 01:30, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Source searches are not providing any coverage in reliable sources. Appears to not meet WP:BASIC. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:05, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:N not established. Need references with biographical content or reviews of acting performances with critical commentary in WP:RS.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:22, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It didn't pass a search engine test or have meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources search (just passing mentions and nothing close to even a dedicated section). Please ping me if more (non-English and offline) sources show in the future, especially interviews. czar ♔ 15:09, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:21, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fábio Holanda

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

As a fighter he fails WP:NMMA with no top tier fights and WP:MANOTE since his best documented result in BJJ is as a purple belt. Seems to be a lot of name dropping in the article, but notability is not inherited and there's a lack of independent sources to show he meets GNG.Mdtemp (talk) 16:41, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't seem to meet any notability standards--NMMA, MANOTE, or GNG.204.126.132.231 (talk) 15:42, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He doesn't meet WP:NMMA or WP:MANOTE. As currently written the article doesn't show that he meets WP:GNG, either. Papaursa (talk) 04:13, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:22, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Journey Characters

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

Non-notable character(s?) from Journey to the Center of the Earth (2008 theatrical film). Article is essentially a plot summary, and its only "source" is IMDb. (Wikipedia:Citing IMDb#Disputed uses.) G S Palmer (talk) 15:59, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-notable list. The individual film articles are sufficient to provide brief descriptions of the characters. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:52, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:LISTN. I agree with Erik. The films by themselves are enough. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:16, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 soft delete. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:23, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Digital Light & Sound

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

Doesn't appear a terribly notable company, don't see much coverage in published sources although the name isn't the most distinctive. All I really see online is promotional/self published stuff, but JUST enough (along with the couple of awards apparently won) to bring to discussion. Mabalu (talk) 15:25, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:24, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kaya Zwick

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

No indication of notability per WP:MUSICBIO. Unsourced. Article is an autobiography. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:21, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete (A7) - no indication of importance or significance. Gongshow talk 16:23, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of passing WP:MUSICBIO. No reliable source coverage found in search. • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete lacks sufficient reliable coverage to meet WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 16:45, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete A7 per above. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 18:22, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Sic semper falsium The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:05, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Colonel Roystan Lewis

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

Does not appear notable per WP:SOLDIER. Completely unsourced. Appears to be a copy-and-paste move or recreation of a deleted article, but I cannot find the original source. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:12, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find evidence of his existence, still less notability. Article claims he has a DFC and an OBE so I would expect some evidence of him online, even if only in a list. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:36, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree - sounds like a hoax, especially in view of the misspellings and poor grammar. I suspect it's the name of a friend of the article creator. Deb (talk) 15:11, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete hoax. It doesn't matter whether this hoax meets WP:SOLDIER or not, as it's a hoax. All appointments of officers to HM Armed Forces, including any promotions they receive, are gazetted in the London Gazette - there is no mention of him in the gazette. His name is unusual enough that it should come up with a search. I also searched for Royston Lewis and couldn't find anything relevant. The mention of an MBE and DFC also appears to be completely untrue. The only person I could find with this name was this man and I suspect this might be the reason for the hoax. Barney the barney barney (talk) 17:06, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete hoax. EricSerge (talk) 17:26, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as a hoax/ →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 19:58, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:25, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Baykocha Nakalatch

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

Borderline G-11. No evidence of encyclopedic notability WP:N. Sole cited source fails WP:RS. A Google turned up very little beyond the usual promotional hits. Prod was removed. I suspect the author does not understand that just because something exists does not mean it belongs in an encyclopedia. Ad Orientem (talk) 13:37, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It has very little content and is written more like a review. Its only source is a link to buy the movie. cyberdog958^Talk 21:40, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. slakr^\ talk / 02:44, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gantto

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

Software probably failed notability while it existed, but in any case the company seems to have since been bought out by Tom's Planner (which has its own wikipedia page) and so the Gantto software does not exist any longer, the website just points to Tom's Planner. The article still reads like an advertisement and it is hardly likely to be improved. U2fanboi (talk) 12:33, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 13:30, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete has no notability; all the references used are about the company and not the software which is what that article was about to begin with. --CyberXRef^☎ 15:07, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:49, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2014 Saltillo BAe 125 crash

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

Tragic but not notable general aviation accident. ...William 09:45, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. -...William 09:50, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -...William 09:50, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. ...William 09:50, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William 09:50, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Small corporate jet, no notable victims. Already mentioned in 2014 in aviation. Brandmeister^talk 12:56, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 15:42, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vapour pressure thermometer

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

it's just one sentence.Casvdschee (talk) 09:41, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. Or, as an alternative, merge into Thermometer. Vapour pressure thermometers aren't mentioned there yet (at least not by that name). GoldenRing (talk) 13:29, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No valid reason given for deletion.TheLongTone (talk) 13:34, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge what about an article containing 1 sentence is not a reason to delete it? if somebody improves it I will see less reason to delete it but having just one sentence is not enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Casvdschee (talk • contribs) 18:45, 8 May 2014‎

No, an article containing 1 sentence is not a reason to delete it. The deletion guidelines are clear: we delete where an article is incapable of improvement, not where it has not yet been improved. Also, please sign your comments. GoldenRing (talk) 14:50, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oddly enough, even if the article were completely empty, that is not grounds for deletion; note the quote from WP:BEFORE that AioftheStorm posts below. Agyle (talk) 23:22, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, our guidelines are explicit If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD, furthermore nothing about this article seems to meet any of our 14 reasons to delete.AioftheStorm (talk) 03:05, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are many independent reliable sources with significant coverage about this topic to meet notability guidelines.

Andersen, Holger C. (1945). A simple carbon dioxide vapor pressure thermometer. U.S. Atomic Energy Commission.
Boyes, Walt (2009). Instrumentation Reference Book. Butterworth-Heinemann. pp. 281–284. ISBN 978-0-08-094188-2.
Pavese, Franco; Beciet, Gianfranco Molinar Min (2012). "Chapter 4: Vapor Pressure Thermometry". Modern Gas-Based Temperature and Pressure Measurements (2nd ed.). Springer. pp. 221–260. ISBN 978-1-4419-8282-7.

The current deficiencies in the Wikipedia article are not grounds for deletion, for reasons discussed before this post. Agyle (talk) 23:22, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 Bhaag Milkha Bhaag#Awards and honors. (non-admin closure) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 15:46, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of accolades received by Bhaag Milkha Bhaag

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

it was requested that the -List of accolades received by Bhaag Milkha Bhaag which had a separete page should be merged into the main page into the Awards section,which i have done,so requesting this page to be deleted. GearsOfWar65 (talk) 09:19, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Simpler just to redirect to Bhaag Milkha Bhaag#Awards and honors and keep the edit history. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:01, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Wikipedia's copyright policy. Content has been merged. The source article's edit history needs to kept to preserve attribution. • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 Greater Romania. Several editors in the delete camp recommended delete but put forward as a rationale that instead the Greater Romania article (GR) could be expanded. That is essentially an argument for merge, despite the call to delete. The principle argument of the keep camp is that GR only covers the interwar period. However, not much in the way of argument, at least policy based argument, was put forward as to why GR should not be so expanded. The principle argument appears to be that GR is about a state and this article is about a political concept. However, the title Greater Romania does not immediately lead our readers to expect an article on Greater Romania (1918-1940) and I note that in the Name section of GR the discussion goes back to 1852. The principle argument from the delete camp was that this article is fork of the Greater Romania article. If it is indeed a content fork then there should be no substantive objection to remerging. There was some discussion on creating a Romanian nationalism article. Whether to do this or not is a matter for editors to discuss going forward and this close should in no way be seen as preventing material being split out into such an article at a later date. In the same vein, this close decision should not be taken as an endorsement of any view expressed in the current article—what material to merge and how to do it is again for the normal editing process to work out. Spinning Spark 20:54, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greater Romania (political concept)

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

This looks like Wikipedia:Content forking to me. There is already an existing article named Greater Romania
Later edit (09:36, 13 May 2014): I realized that we also have an article named National awakening of Romania which somehow deals with the same topic. Avpop (talk) 08:38, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 May 8. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 09:02, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It has very little to do with interwar Romania (Greater Romania). Actually, there is another page "Unification of Romania and Moldova" which makes me think about the future of this page but 1, "Unification of Romania and Moldova" does not discuss the concept of "Romanian revisionism" properly 2, Its name is misleading, it should strictly refer only to the period of the "possible unification of Romania and Moldova" (the early nineties) because it is not an ongoing "process". 3, Why do "Greater Serbia" and "Greater Hungary" exist? Fakirbakir (talk) 09:06, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The discussions about the unification of Romania and Moldova are still existing, they were not actual only in the 1990s. See the December 2013 declaration of President Basescu: "Romania's next big goal is merger with Moldova"

Regarding "Greater Serbia" and "Greater Hungary", it should be discussed how Wikipedia:Other stuff exists policy applies here. Avpop (talk) 09:18, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The period of the "possible unification of Romania and Moldova" happened in the early nineties. Basescu's statement rather belongs to the"Greater Romania (political concept)". Actually "the concept of Greater Romania" is the guiding principle for the "unification of Romania an Moldova". Also, some Romanian nationalists claim more Hungarian and Serbian territories and the ideology of their claim is the concept of Greater Romania.Fakirbakir (talk) 09:32, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Original research. You don't have any evidence to show that unification with Moldova was more possible with the Sovietized population of the latter country in 1992 and the Soviet-educated leadership of Romania than it might be today, when a younger generation has risen that is more aware of Europe and of the shared past, and the leadership on both sides is much more open to the idea. You also have no evidence that "some Romanian nationalists" have wanted the entire Banat since about 1941. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:11, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that the nationalist demands are/were based on the concept of Greater Romania. Fakirbakir (talk) 15:13, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Moldova-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not only is this a content fork, it probably also violates WP:NOR, WP:COATRACK and WP:SYNTH.
Look, the idea of "Greater Romania" probably can be divided into three distinct phases: before 1918, when it was an unrealized project; 1918 to 1940, when it actually existed; and since 1940, the political and/or ideological impulse for its recreation. That hardly justifies having two separate articles; it simply indicates we should expand the longstanding article we already have, Greater Romania, with a greater dose of theoretical content. And while Unification of Romania and Moldova is a sort-of related idea, it actually is distinct and needs to be kept separate. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:11, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Greater Romania" is about interwar Romania. It covers ONLY the period between the World Wars. Fakirbakir (talk) 15:00, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because you say so? I'm sorry, that's not good enough. There is no policy-based reason — none — that says the Greater Romania article cannot be expanded with a section that details the concept as it existed until 1918, and with another that covers developments related to the idea since 1940. - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:08, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no other article about interwar Romania. It is pretty straightforward. Are you suggesting that Vadim Tudor's or Gheorghe Funar's statements in connection with Greater Romania belong to subject of interwar Romania? Fakirbakir (talk) 15:19, 8 May 2014 (UTC)https://www.facebook.com/events/642482102479760/?fref=ts#[reply]

Actually, there is another article that has quite a bit of coverage of interwar Romania: Kingdom of Romania.

More to the point, I am suggesting you avoid original research. Despite the name of their party, neither Vadim Tudor nor Funar are particularly connected to Romanian irredentism, and you haven't provided citations to the contrary. (And no, "pp. 161-176" or " pp. 166-298" is not good enough; you need specific page numbers.) Funar's main platform was "defending the rights of Romanians in Transylvania from Hungarian revanchism"; Vadim Tudor's, in addition to that, was "rehabilitating the image of late communism", and "attacking Jews and Gypsies".

The academic term for sentiment that advocates the union of Romania and Moldova is not "Greater Romania" but "pan-Romanianism", e.g. [1], [2], [3], [4]. Of course, that too can be covered at Unification of Romania and Moldova rather than spun out as a separate article.

The Greater Romania article has plenty of space and scope for covering the development of the idea prior to 1918, its existence over the next twenty-two years, and its manifestations over the last 74 years. This article is a content fork and the sooner it's gone, the better. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:29, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Fakirbakir In Greater Romania article there was also a phrase referring to present irredentism (When used in a political context it has an irredentist connotation, mainly concerning the territories that were ruled by Romania in the interwar period, that are now part of Ukraine, the Republic of Moldova or Bulgaria.) that was removed by you here. Avpop (talk) 15:10, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The statement as you see it has been unsourced since 2008.Fakirbakir (talk) 15:19, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nonsense. The little content from this page, if properly sourced, can be added to Greater Romania. --Codrin.B (talk) 09:23, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - One "greater" anycountry, in this case Greater Romania, is more than enough. BlueMist (talk) 00:12, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "Greater Romania" is primarily a political concept. The article Greater Romania, which is of the historical period spanning from 1918 to 1940, should be renamed. Reliable sources written in the last 20 years prefer the expression "Inter-war Romania" for the same period (for instance, Bolovan, Ioan et al (1997): A History of Romania /The Center for Romanian Studies, ISBN 973-98091-0-3/; Pop, Ioan-Aurel (1999): Romanians and Romania: A Brief History /Boulder, ISBN 0-88033-440-1/) Borsoka (talk) 02:40, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately for your argument, modern source upon source upon source upon source upon source upon source upon source upon source upon source upon source does in fact use the term "Greater Romania" to refer to the interwar state, and as all participants aside from the article creator have suggested, this article is a content fork that invents a topic where none exists by gathering together disparate mentions of "Greater Romania" and pretending they amount to a coherent entity. Whatever there is to be said about latter-day initiatives for recreating the 1918-1940 state, or whatever backstory for that state can be quoted from reliable sources, can amply be done so in the longstanding Greater Romania article. - Biruitorul ^Talk 04:07, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please read your sources before referring to them. In a historical context, most of them prefer the expression "Interwar Romania", as I mentioned it here. Borsoka (talk) 05:04, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Appears to be a WP:POVFORK.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:24, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Volunteer Marek. BMK (talk) 07:39, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is hilarious. If this page was deleted, would you tell me where I could find anything about "concept of Greater Romania"? Do you think it is a POV issue? Have you checked the references? Fakirbakir (talk) 07:48, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't the "concept of Greater Romania" be presented in a section of the already existing Greater Romania article? Avpop (talk) 07:52, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A related discussion is at Talk:Greater_Romania#Requested_move Avpop (talk) 08:14, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion was closed and the result of the move request was: not moved. Avpop (talk) 16:05, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I mostly agree with Borsoka; it's about a political concept and Greater Romania article is about interwar Kingdom of Romania (former state). By the way, the article is well-referenced.--Rovibroni (talk) 09:52, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The topic is notable. I found multiple sources about this political concept.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:16, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Antidiskriminator please post here the most relevant sources that you found in order to let other editors check them. Avpop (talk) 20:56, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here is one of sources which explains this political concept in connection with other similar political concepts at Balkans:

Hodge, Carole; Grbin, Mladen (2000). Europa i nacionalizam: nacionalni identitet naspram nacionalnoj netrpeljivosti : međunarodni simpozij, Korčula, 21.-28.9. 1998. Durieux. p. 49. ISBN 978-953-188-113-5. Iredentizam se artikulira kroz seriju mega projekata (Velika Njemacika, Velika Srbija, Velika Hrvatska, Velika Madarska, Velika Rumunija, blisko okruzenje Rusije, itd.) kojima je svima u osnovi reciprocna netolerancija, te stoga i medusobna ...--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:09, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disregard the topic, I agree that it is a notable one. My point is that Romanian irredentism that led to the creation of interwar Romania and the post-WW2 desire for its re-creation can be included in the old article that is Greater Romania (a WP:MERGE)

Also, Citations to non-English sources are allowed. However, because this is the English-language Wikipedia, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones, whenever English sources of equal quality and relevance are available. (WP:RSUE) Avpop (talk) 21:20, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Greater Romania. 23 editor (talk) 20:07, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Antidiskriminator, Rovibroni: you both fail to address a key issue, namely that it is not necessary to have one article on the Romanian state that existed between 1918 and 1940, and another on its ideological background, underpinnings and aftermath. And no, "sources exist" is not necessarily a valid counterargument. Sources exist on all kinds of subtopics that do not rise to the level of separate articles. We have things called sections that handle this sort of situation and avoid content forking. Yes, it's likely there is some sort of vague ideology surrounding this whole notion, although the article as it presently reads is a disgraceful coatrack, a poorly-formatted, visibly ungrammatical attack page rather than an asset. In no way does that imply it's warranted to have two articles covering very closely related ground. - Biruitorul ^Talk 05:49, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At least, you now admit the concept exists. You just dislike to idea of a separate article. You "fail to address" why article of interwar Romania should include the development of an ideology which led a nation to choose a particular course of action in the past two hundred years. Fakirbakir (talk) 08:33, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a shift in my position: of course there was an idea that motivated the union of Romanian lands into a single state, their maintenance as such and the desire for their recreation. We are talking about developments after the rise of romantic nationalism, with all that entails. We are not talking about someone in the pre-modern period randomly conquering as much land as he can that happens to include inhabitants speaking more or less the same language.

Like much else in the polemic you've created, the "past two hundred years" claim is extremely tendentious. All you have about 1848 (which was actually 166 years ago) is this: "the dream of a greater Romania… seemed to be a possibility". You then turn that into "The Romanian revolution in 1848 already carried the seeds of the national dream of a unified and united 'Greater Romania'." That is a fairly transparent manipulation. For one, by capitalizing the "g", you link the vague hopes of 1848 to the specific project that came to fruition in 1918, when the source does no such thing. For another, you extrapolate from one revolutionary moment and turn that into a stage of a decades-long concerted process, when nothing of the sort in reality took place. You naturally ignore, for example, that Romania and Austria-Hungary signed a secret alliance treaty in 1883, and that although the National Liberals made some noises about the "Transylvania question", for instance organizing a pavilion about the province at the 1906 exhibition in Bucharest against King Carol's objections, by and large the issue of Transylvania in domestic Romanian politics, to say nothing of Bessarabia or Bukovina, was dormant until 1914 — and even then, opinions were divided between P. P. Carp and the King on the one hand, who continued to insist on upholding the treaty, and francophiles on the other hand, who wanted to seize the moment and fight to achieve a unified state.

The point is that this story is a) more nuanced than you make it out to be and b) forms an integral whole: theory, practice, aftermath. Your division of it into two articles is artificial, serves the reader poorly by sending him to two places when he can logically get everything in one, and constitutes nothing less than a biased content fork. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:30, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

These are groundless accusations. There is no manipulation. I can use the expression "dream of greater Romania" instead of "unified Greater Romania" but the meaning will be the same. The "dream" depicts the desire for a greater Romania, therefore, this "dream" in 1848 is a splendid evidence for the presence of the concept of "Greater Romania". However I would not mind if we rephrased the sentence. What do I ignore? Can not you see that I created the article only five days ago? It is a stub article. There are a lot of works to do. Fakirbakir (talk) 16:16, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there's no reason to conflate the history of Romania between the World Wars and a revisionist concept still alive today. While article naming could be discussed, such as moving most content from the current Greater Romania to History of Romania (1918-1940) (like we do for Poland) to make way for the article on the ideology, the topics are clearly different. Just like the "Greater Hungary" revisionism is different from the mediaeval Hungarian Kingdom or the ideology of "Greater Russia" is different from the late Romanov's Empire.Anonimu (talk) 21:46, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. There seem to be a number of sources on GBooks refering to this as a "concept" (ex. [5]), so a discussion of this aspect of the term seems to have some merit, notability-wise. (Ping User:Volunteer Marek: can you expand on your rationale for deletion?). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:36, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The political concept is closely related to the result, Greater Romania, thus it is natural to appear as a subsection of Greater Romania article. I see no reason to segregate such related information. -- Saturnian (talk) 19:05, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Greater Romania after weeding out the OR. This source, currently reference 20, links the Greater Romania idea to the New Right party, so it's continued existence is proven — but it does not link it to the PRM as the article text does. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 12:24, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cancel that: this other source does establish the link to the PRM. But there's still a lot of what appears to be WP:SYNTH in the article, and I don't see why we need two articles here, given that neither is too long to read. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 12:28, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand why we should discuss pan-Romanianism at the article of interwar Romania (Greater Romania). If I followed your logic page of Unification of Romania and Moldova would have to be merged with Greater Romania too. Anyway, the reasons of the shortness of these articles can be easily answered. "Greater Romania" is a badly written article as I see nobody really cares about its content. "Greater Romania (political concept)" is only nine days old stub/start class article. They could be much much longer. Fakirbakir (talk) 13:21, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Qwertyus has the right idea when calling for a merger. Personally, I think this should just be deleted, but by all means anything that can be salvaged, should be. The ideological underpinnings of the interwar state are closely enough related to the state itself that the two topics, insofar as they are separate, can easily be covered in one place. Separating the articles creates for a content fork filled with original research and synthesis that makes for egregious POV-pushing.

Fakirbakir, it's not relevant if this article is nine or ninety or nine hundred days old, just like it's not relevant how poorly written Greater Romania is. What is relevant is that despite your desperate attempts to stuff all sorts of unrelated bits of trivia and thereby create the appearance of a coherent article, the structural flaws are apparent right away.

And no, Unification of Romania and Moldova can't be merged anywhere; neither can National awakening of Romania, which this article largely duplicates in its pre-1918 material, nor Greater Romania Party, which, just to remind the audience, does have its own article. The "unification" article refers to a specific movement for joining the present-day states of Romania and Moldova, whereas the Greater Romania project involved incorporation into Romania of Bessarabia, Bukovina, southern Dobrudja, the Banat, Crișana, Maramureș and Transylvania. - Biruitorul ^Talk 00:00, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since I assume this will be closed soon, let me say a word to the closing administrator. This article probably started as a misguided attempt to create for Romania something along the lines of Greater Hungary (political concept). But whereas that concept has been amply documented in reliable sources, that is plainly not the case here, as the sourcing shows. For instance, I explained above why, despite the distortion from source to article, no historian has actually linked the 1848 revolution to the events of 1918 that created Greater Romania. Moreover, the pre-1918 movement for uniting the Romanian lands has been documented and can further be documented at National awakening of Romania. The article's description of present-day developments is both tendentious (Acțiunea 2012, for instance, is a studiously moderate outfit, not the "extremists" the article would have us believe call for unification with Moldova) and a fork, since Unification of Romania and Moldova covers that aspect thoroughly.
In sum: we have Greater Romania, Greater Romania Party, National awakening of Romania and Unification of Romania and Moldova to cover more or less similar concepts. We simply do not need yet another article - a hopelessly POV one, an obvious content fork - repeating the same material, when that can easily be done at the extant articles. - Biruitorul ^Talk 00:00, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment.Biruitorul is biased in his approach to the issue. For instance, he has a Greater Romania map on his user page with a quote "Romania - the way it should be". He just does not like the idea of a separate article. I can tell you it will not hurt if we have a separate article about this topic. Pan-Romanianism does not belong to the subject of -interwar- Greater Romania. Fakirbakir (talk) 08:47, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fakirbakir, comment on content, not on the contributor. I ask you to strike out the personal attack component of your comment, or else I may seek administrative intervention again. I have carefully laid out my reasons for opposing this page, and they do not relate to personal preference. To the closing administrator, please note that this kind of battleground mentality can only be expected to continue if the article is kept. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:16, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- Note to closing admin: while Biruitorul above is right and there is little to connect the 1848 revolutions to the 1918 event, this was the official Romanian historiographical discourse until few years ago (i.e. this is what the K12-level history textbooks said for almost a century, with a hiatus in the 1950s). Basically, since the 1920s, "Greater Romania" was the normative paradigm in interpreting the events involving the territory of Romania, sometimes going as far as the BC era (it's fun to see how an arbitrary line drawn in 1913 to delineate the border between Romania and Bulgaria was translated back in time to the 14th century). This proves that the concept/ideology in itself is independent of the actual state entity controlling Romania and territories of neighbouring countries between 1918-1940. Admittedly, it is an ideology that is nowadays being abandoned in mainstream Romanian historiography (not so much in the pro-Romanian Moldovan one), but is still historically relevant and notable.
- Furthermore, the movement for the unification of Romania and Moldova is closely linked to this ideology (supporters of the movement commonly sport symbols like this, symbol representing the borders of interwar Romania also found on stickers across Romanian cities; stencils like this one are not uncommon in Chisinau - note the borders of interwar Romania linked with the historically unrelated Stephen the Great).
- To conclude, the topic is a notable encyclopaedic one, independent of the former state. As a matter of fact, this topic is better supported by mainstream historiography and less WP:SYNTHy than the claim of a Soviet occupation of Romania spanning more than a decade, as a WP article currently advocates. While the article currently has some flaws, it is in much better shape that other articles, and specific problems with a source or two has never been reason for deleting an article.Anonimu (talk) 09:15, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - The problems run much deeper than "a source or two".
    - What about the claim that the Romanian Communist Party supported re-establishing Greater Romania in 1944-47? Yes, I know we have a source saying that, but this rather extraordinary claim requires, it would seem, further documentation. We know the the Communists' 1946 platform called for "close and permanent ties of friendship with the USSR and neighboring countries", which would be rather difficult to achieve while laying claim to the lost provinces.
    - Then again, this article is highly problematic - for starters, despite claims of peer review, it's written in rather poor English. But anyway: "radicals make territorial demands on Hungary". Really? Who are these supposed "radicals", what part of Hungary do they demand, and who has written about them in any depth?
    - "The population gradually lost its faith in the democratic conception of 'Greater Romania'". For one, this is extremely shoddy "scholarship" - what is cited is an English-language abstract of a publication that's in German; the publication itself is not cited. For another, the observation is irrelevant to the article: it refers to the rise of extremist parties in the wake of the Depression. While that is an interesting phenomenon in the context of Romanian political history, it has nothing to do with the alleged "Greater Romania (political concept)".
  - I could go on, but the point is that source after source is abused to make tendentious claim upon tendentious claim. If this is what we can expect for the future, better to delete now. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:16, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Poor English is the language of science — many publication venues force authors to write in English, even in the humanities and social sciences (to increase the audience and up the citation scores that funding bodies stare at), but few have the manpower to fix spelling, grammar or style. You can't reject a source on the basis of bad English. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 11:19, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- - - I beg to differ.
      - The RCP did support the full restoration of Northern Transylvania to Romania, even if parts of it had clear Hungarian majorities and some of the local RCP representatives pushed for at least an autonomous status for the region. Furthermore, Groza repeatedly raised the issue of Southern Dobruja with the Bulgarian representative in Bucharest, aiming to at least a partial reversal of the Craiova Treaty. I'm not currently aware on any high-level initiative to re-negotiate the border with the Soviet Union, but I would not be surprised. Many in the younger generation of the RCP had been educated to believe in the historical rightfulness of a "Greater Romania". Anyway, the source in itself is written by an academic and published by a reputable publisher. It is certainly more reliable than the personal opinion of an anonymous editor of Wikipedia.
      - Supposedly the radicals are the same enumerated elsewhere in article, i.e. PRM and ND. What territories? These unencyclopaedic maps uploaded on WP (probably by supporters of the ideology) might give you an idea: File:Romania_Mare1.jpg, File:RomanianTerritories.png. As Qwertyus mentioned, the language issue is not that important, and is rather common in peer-reviewed journals published in countries where English is not widely spoken.
      - While I don't read German, a quick look over the source with Google Translate suggest it would be relevant to this article. For example, around pages 300-310, it discusses the efforts to integrate territories without a historical Romanian-speaking population (e.g. Dobruja) into the Greater Romanian discourse, as well as attempts to promote the concept to an European audience, and counter the Greater Hungary concept. A German speaker may easily identify in the source the pages relevant to our article.
    - Therefore, none of your "problems" are actual issues. This seems to be a classic case of WP:JDL.Anonimu (talk) 12:36, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- Let's grant a role for the RCP in the return of Northern Transylvania (although the main players in that story were the King and Petru Groza, who studiously maintained the façade of not being a Communist). In terms of south Dobrudja, we have this from a leading expert on the region, as regards a petition formulated in 1946 and demanding its return to Romania: "[it] was not supported in any way by the official delegation of the communist government then in power in Bucharest". As for Bessarabia and northern Bukovina, I'm afraid no source has been adduced claiming the RCP wanted those areas back either.
- Anonimu has been playing this anonymous user line for quite some time, and despite his attempts to dismiss what I have to say, it absolutely is appropriate to question a source. In fact, as he said in that very comment of November 2007, "extraordinary claims need extraordinary proofs". It is in fact extraordinary to claim that the RCP wanted a restoration of Greater Romania in 1944-47, and the source cited is a 1990 work by a man who is not a Romania expert, and who furthermore was working at a time when Western scholars had sharply limited access to relevant materials on Romania.
- Speaking of anonymous Internet editors, I'm afraid those maps prove nothing. ND respects the Trianon borders. So does PRM, it would appear. The claim of demands on Hungary is a spurious one, unsupported by evidence.
- In terms of the German article, the abstract as cited is unrelated to the article's purported topic. What can be cited from within the article is another issue entirely, but its pertinence has yet to be demonstrated.
- Let's take yet another flawed line from the article: "The first step in re-unifying Romanians was to establish The United Principalities of Moldavia and Wallachia in 1859". True. But that is straightforward history. The source does not link this event to some "Greater Romania (political concept)", and rightly so, as the events of 1859 really had very little to do with such. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:25, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Uh, no. While Northern Transylvania was reverted to Romania primarily due to Soviet geopolitical concerns (Mihai and Groza having little to do with it), the representative of the central RCP (N. Golberger) went at great lengths to prevent the de facto civil administration instituted in the region in late 1944-early 1945 from publicly endorsing a position against the thesis of an unitary Romanian state. Furthermore, the autonomists among the local RCP members (e.g. Vescan) were stripped of party positions once the RCP-supported government restored its administration in the region. In the case of Southern Dobruja, Groza raised the issue before the petition went public, and suggested that the Soviets be made aware of any negotiations, which would have been difficult if the RCP hadn't endorsed him; as a matter of fact, the strongly-worded nationalist petition you mention appears to have ruined Groza's plan. Oh, and your "expert" is leading only among the promoters of Ceausescu-era nationalist historical mythology.
  - What about your comment above where you said people should comment on facts, not on editors? Also, get your facts straight: the book was published in 2004 and, while the author doesn't appear to be especially interested in Romania, he has several published works on nationalism in the Balkans. Your claims about lack of access to archives and whatnot is therefore irrelevant.
  - Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth.
  - The linked source does provide information relevant to the topic. This info is not currently included in the article, but we are discussing a deletion, not a FA nomination. Availability of potential sources is thus relevant.
  - I see no problem with providing some context. If all WP articles would be stripped down to bare facts strictly about the titular subject, the average user without extensive knowledge of the topic would understand nothing.Anonimu (talk) 18:08, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately for Anonimu, the kinds of mischaracterizations and character assassination present in the above post may not be enough to save this article, and even if they are, they are certainly not enough to keep the article for being irredeemably tainted by POV.
- He ignores the key role played in the return of Northern Transylvania by King Michael, in spite of published opinions by historians.
- He makes unverified assertions about the activity of Petru Groza, a man who in any case never joined the RCP. He also fails to realize that the most logical venue for discussing this history is at Northern Transylvania.
- He smears the memory of the late Gheorghe Zbuchea, a PhD in History, a man who taught said discipline for decades at Romania's top faculty in the field (at the University of Bucharest), who supervised doctoral theses there until his death in 2008, who wrote widely in the post-1989 era and whose work came out via respected publishing houses.
- He implicitly concedes that no attempt was made by the Communists to recover Bessarabia in 1944-47, which rather negates the "Communists demanded Greater Romania's restoration" thesis, especially given that today, union Bessarabia is a core demand of most Romanians (some 75% in recent polls).
- While he asserts, correctly, that Ethnic Violence and the Societal Security Dilemma dates to 2004, he ignores the fact that the citation in the book for that "fact" is from Trond Gilberg's Nationalism and Communism in Romania, published in 1990, when archival access was indeed decidedly problematic.
- In reiterating the core of WP:V, he ignores several corollaries, such as "The appropriateness of any source depends on the context", or "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources." The claim that amorphous Romanian "extremists" demand parts of Hungary is indeed exceptional, and it is most appropriate for editors to demand further verification of such an outlandish claim. The very identity of said extremists is left unclear in the original source, a definite red flag.
- He claims that Oliver Schmitt's article provides citable information, but makes no effort to cite it himself, and no effort to integrate the material into an established article such as Greater Romania, as would be more logical.
- He mentions the importance of context, on which I agree, but claims not to see the misleading nature of the citation at hand, which makes it appear as though the events of 1859 were part of a grander, decades-long scheme to unify the Romanian lands, when in fact what happened in 1918 was largely the result of accident, the rest being attributable to no more than half a decade of activity. - Biruitorul ^Talk 23:56, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Despite his hypocritical comment to Fakirbakir, it appears that Biruitorul is the one who cannot refrain from resorting to personal attacks in order to justify his particular point of view. Anyway:
  - No matter the post-factum rationalizations by some authors favourable to the former ruler of Romania in a popular history magazine, Mihai had no business in the matter of Northern Transylvania, which objective foreign scholars agree was primarily a Soviet foreign policy decision (the Soviets couldn't care less about Mihai's opinions or actions, as it became clear later during the "royal strike"). While this specific discussion should indeed be moved to that article, my comments were only meant to indicate that the assertion present in the reliable source is far from being "extraordinary".
  - Your assertions are unverified, and your assumption is insulting. My facts are backed by authoritative peer-reviewed sources, such as this one, not by some self-published PDF file found on the web. Also, you insistence in pointing out Groza was not member of the RCP is bizzare, considering that just a comment above you referred to his government as "communist". Confusing third parties is not a fair way to win an argument.
  - Zbuchea was, along with other historians of his generation like Buzatu or Coja, a supporter of a militant nationalist historiography. His occasional hagiographies about leading members of the fascist Iron Guard further reinforce this view. Unfortunately, such relics of national-communist historiography survived in Romanian academia well into the 2000s. Just last year one of these "PhD in History" held a discourse at the Romanian Academy denying the Holocaust.
  - Unless you are a published academic and have written a review about the book published by a peer-reviewed venue, you have no moral authority to judge the author's selection of sources. If his peer reviewers found it OK, you have no right to contest it on whimsical grounds.
  - WP:V's observations are very reasonable: news article can be used for current events articles but they shouldn't generally be used for sourcing things like the funerary ritual in Ancient Egypt. In our case, the reference is an adequate scholarly source dealing with nationalist aggrandisement fantasies in South-Eastern Europe, i.e. a topic that includes the concept of Greater Romania. While the author failed to rise to the expectations of the anonymous editor of WP known as Biruitroul and did not find it necessary to enumerate the Romanian extremists each and every time he mentioned them, that doesn't turn his article into an unreliable source.
  - I see no reason to invest significant effort in sourcing an article that has 50% chances of being deleted. And I see no reason to go into the details of this nationalistic ideology in the article about a state that is only partly related to it. We don't squeeze in Manifest destiny as a section of US history in the first half of the 18th century, I see no reason to do it in the case of Romania either.
  - "the events of 1859 were part of a grander, decades-long scheme to unify the Romanian lands" was standard discourse in Romanian historiography for almost a century. And I can bring tons of references for this from lots of Romanian top historians. They were obviously just creating post-factum justifications in order to promote a nationalist agenda, but sources do exist, and they aren't few.Anonimu (talk) 19:30, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Anonimu's distortions continue unabated. He begins by dismissing the opinion of Steliu Lambru, PhD in History with an impressive array of activity in that field, as "post-factum rationalizations by some authors". He then attempts to bury the Bessarabia issue by asserting that "the assertion present in the reliable source is far from being 'extraordinary'". Of course, it is an extraordinary claim to make, saying that Communists wanted to recreate Greater Romania, Soviet-occupied Bessarabia included, and the general comment made by the source does not constitute sufficient verification.
- He goes on to label as "insulting" a request for sources, which surely is a first. He dismisses an article by noted authority Gheorghe Zbuchea as "some self-published PDF file found on the web", when in fact the article is hosted on the site of a serious project aiming to gather together scholarly opinions and writings on the Aromanians, who have been the subject of far too much baseless speculation. Moreover, he seems surprised by the notion of multiparty cabinets, perhaps unaware that while the government that took office on 6 March 1945 was "communist-dominated" or simply "communist" (modern works use both terms), not all its ministers were communist - Tătărescu was a Liberal, Voitec at that point a Social Democrat, and, yes, Groza himself was part of the Ploughmen's Front.
- He continues his attacks on the late Prof. Zbuchea without much substance. He does not challenge the scholarship he produced with facts, but with assertions ("supporter of a militant nationalist historiography"). In an effort to discredit him, he brings up Zbuchea's attempts to rehabilitate someone like Constantin Papanace, a complex but ultimately praiseworthy man who spent decades in exile pleading the cause of captive Romania, and who, like many of his generation's best men, happened to belong to the Guard. Of course, even if one disagrees with his stance on that subject, the value of his scholarly work is hardly negated. He then brings up a speech by Prof. Vladimir Iliescu, as if that were somehow relevant - a speech that raised a series of pertinent questions which timid Romanian scholars have been far too reluctant to debate in recent years, but at the same time made clear that Romania had directed "persecutions" against the Jews that led to "crimes equally condemnable with those of the Holocaust".
- He proceeds to lecture me on what I may or may not challenge and under what circumstances. Needless to say, such posturing is absurd. It is perfectly reasonable and routine to ask for more details about the highly dubious claims made in the article and cited to works of questionable merit. The same goes for the mention of "extremists": anonymous user Anonimu browbeats anonymous user Biruitorul for having the temerity to demand just who these individuals are who demand parts of Hungary for Romania's territory. Well, again, that is an extraordinary claim and the fact that the article makes no attempt to identify these "extremists" by specifically pointing to instances of such demands calls its integrity into question.
- He rounds out his diatribe with a claim that he can "bring tons of references" linking the 1859 project to that of 1918. Should the article be kept, it would be interesting to see those, but for now, all we have is meaningless assertions. - Biruitorul ^Talk 20:50, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Lacking actual arguments, Biruitorul can only resort to even more personal attacks.
  - The author mentioned by Biruitorul has an unusually short list of academic publications for an activity already spanning more than 15 years (articles in popular history magazine are not considered scientific in academia), and most of these few publication are on the topic of national identity. Furthermore, reading the linked article anyone can see that the role of Mihai is simply postulated, and never explained. A foreseeable position, considering there is nothing to justify such assertion, and even one of the sources mentioned by this popular history article (Pokivaylova & Islamov 2003) clearly disproves it. Published documents, such as these further demonstrate the baselessness of such claims. The numerous sources indicating the efforts of the RCP to preserve at least part of Greater Romania (especially parts that had little arguments to connect them to Romania, such as Szeklerland and Southern Dobruja) indicate that a part of its leadership was influenced by this ideology, thus the claim is certainly not extraordinary.
  - The pdf presented by Biruitorul is hosted by a website with no indication of peer-review, which has as contact point a marginal religious foundation. It is self-published by most reasonable standards.
  - It's saddening to see WP editors harbouring revisionist ideas. Because what else if not revisionism is calling a convicted war criminal, who, per Zbuchea's own statements, was one of the closest collaborators of the fascist terrorists who assassinated a Romanian prime-minister, an "ultimately praiseworthy man". What else if not negationism is describing a discourse universally condemned as Holocaust denial by mainstream academia, Romanian and foreign alike, as "a series of pertinent questions which timid Romanian scholars have been far too reluctant to debate"?!?
- Considering the above, I have to reluctantly support Fakirbakir's assertion above, and doubt the good faith of some of the editors who are pushing for the deletion of this perfectly notable encyclopaedic topic, as indicated by the numerous sources already included in the article.Anonimu (talk) 12:42, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Despite Anonimu's outlandish claims, Mr Lambru had already published quite widely, including on the history of 1930s-'40s Romania, even before he received his doctorate. And again despite his claim that the role of the King was irrelevant, this is contradicted by Dan Zamfirescu's book Regele şi mareşalul. He goes on to claim that the RCP demanded the return of the Cadrilater, when earlier he said this demand was formulated by Petru Groza, a man who was not a Party member. He then asserts that there were "little arguments to connect" the "Szeklerland" to Romania, when in fact not only is the local population largely composed of Magyarized Romanians, but also there is a corridor between the region and the Hungarian border that has a quite compact contingent of ethnic Romanians. He also seems to imply that the Cadrilater was naturally Bulgarian territory, when in fact, by 1930, Bulgarians formed a distinct minority of the region's population, while the Romanian element was rapidly rising. And he continues to ignore the inconvenient Bessarabia question, proving that the RCP demands were selective and contingent rather than ideologically committed to Greater Romania.
As is readily apparent, the online Aromanian library reprints texts published elsewhere, for instance the one by Prof. Zbuchea. It does not perform original research.
I find Anonimu's Marxist jargon ("revisionist ideas") more humorous than anything else. Unlike him, I do not take seriously the verdict of a show trial delivered while Romania was under Soviet occupation. I find amusing his outrage at the assassination of the figurehead prime minister of a fascist regime, when (if we are to talk about user pages) his own page proudly displays a quote likening, through its word choice, "fascists" to worms, implying that said dehumanized "fascists" should be killed like vermin. I would much rather defer to the judgment of the democratic authorities of the Italian Republic, who sheltered Papanace for nearly four decades, never lifting a finger against him while he carried on his stoic assault against the Communist tyranny that had engulfed his homeland. Unlike Anonimu, I do not place much stock in talismanic, robotically repeated phrases such as "Holocaust denial", instead preferring to analyze the content of Prof. Iliescu's speech. Given that the professor condemned the crimes committed by the Romanian state from the outset, the manufactured "controversy" was much ado about nothing.
Whatever Anonimu may doubt, the fact remains that the article is hopelessly riddled by original research, is a blatant content fork, and should be deleted as unsalvageable. - Biruitorul ^Talk 17:39, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I invite any reader to check the link. If we exclude the book reviews, we are left with about half a dozen citable works, some of them in marginal publications ("Citadela", "Relations Internatonales de l’Europe Centrale et du Moyen Orient"?!?). All are related to identity politics or the history of Aromanians, nothing to recommend him as an expert on Romanian wartime history. The other source of Biruitorul is a theologian and certified crackpot (check this if you need a laugh)... even Lambru has to concede Zamfirescu is an exponent of the same national communism I have mentioned above. How could an editor in good faith accept such sources and downplay a source put out by a reputable publisher known for extensive peer-reviewing?
There's no indication of Zbuchea's article being taken from elsewhere. Per WP rules, it is self-published.
Biruitorul's recourse to conspiracies supported by fringe groups (such as his transparent reference to "cultural Marxism") is disturbing. Coupled with his support of historical revisionism (a very mainstream concept this side of Irving), such as referring to a verdict endorsed by the US as a "show trial", classifying a centrist, albeit nationalist, politician, leader of the main centre-right party of the era, as "fascist", or dismissing a noted case of Holocaust denial as a "manufactured controversy", this clearly points to the agenda that stands behind the deletion of this article. A clear case of political advocacy supported by flimsy arguments and disguised under verbose wikilawyering.
Furthermore, I find his continual use of personal attacks by Biruitorul grossly overboard, and I think they deserver administrator attention.Anonimu (talk) 19:04, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- While Anonimu seeks to dismiss the work of Steliu Lambru as irrelevant, let us note that the link I introduced is to a CV published before he received his doctorate, which he began in 2000. Naturally, he has published since then. Indeed, by 2009, he was writing on the theory of totalitarianism in 22, even attracting notice from leading expert Vladimir Tismăneanu, who added, "Communism killed, killed, killed". We then have a fact-free comment attacking a noted scholar of the Byzantine Empire and member of the Romanian Academy of Sciences for expressing his cogent views on the ongoing destruction of the Romanian people.
- We are then led to believe that Zbuchea's article is self-published. Nothing could be further from the case. Dosarele istoriei, an. VII, nr. 1(65), Bucureşti, 2002.
- Next, we are provided with a manifest distortion of my remarks. I did not label Călinescu a fascist; I did label the regime he served, the National Renaissance Front, a fascist one. And that is a mainstream view. I find rather absurd the appeal to American validation as somehow legitimizing the Romanian People's Tribunals, considering that the Truman administration enthusiastically avoided any concrete steps that might mitigate Romania's slide into communism. Given the content of Prof. Iliescu's speech, in which he clearly condemned the Romanian state's wartime actions, I reiterate my contempt for the commentators who created a brief firestorm when there was nothing to get upset over. And I reiterate my support for academic freedom, for a spirit of open inquiry, against closing off areas of debate simply because someone has decided it must be so. Finally, I think the Marxist long march through the institutions is a rather obvious path to the subversion and destruction of Western civilization.
- I am then accused of having an "agenda". Indeed, my agenda is the elimination of content forks and shoddy scholarship. I stand proudly behind this agenda.
- I am again accused of personal attacks, when I have done nothing of the sort; these types of false accusations do have a way of ultimately harming the accuser. - Biruitorul ^Talk 00:27, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In the same field, we have also Romanian nationalism, which currently redirects to National awakening of Romania. That article (National awakening of Romania) should be about Romanian Romantic nationalism, while Romanian nationalism should be developed and it should also deal with more recent facts (facts from the 20th and 21st century). Maybe some phrases from the current Greater Romania (political concept) would better fit there. Avpop (talk) 12:41, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per User:Biruitorul. There are far too many forks at this table setting. Bearian (talk) 22:01, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Forks? Where? Wikipedia:FORK. So, where can I read anything about Romanian pan-nationalism properly? Where can I read about ideology of Romanian irredentism on Wikipedia? There are only two copied sentences (it was not my editing) from another Wiki article about Michael the Brave and Balcescu. I do not get the whole idea. Or, Are you saying that there are copyright issues? Could you show me where? If you had said "merge" I could have believed that your intentions are clear. Anyway this is how Wikipedia works? Censoring? We delete articles because we do not like their content? Fakirbakir (talk) 08:11, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have created a template recently and I want to show you all:

As you see, there are quite a lot of pan-nationalist concepts on Wikipedia. I do not understand, why "Greater Romania" has no right to exist?Fakirbakir (talk) 10:53, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hmm, I wonder if the above template is redundant considering that many "Greater X" articles are also linked in an older template:

Avpop (talk) 11:02, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The future of this template is irrelevant here. The point is that subject of Romanian (pan)nationalism has been missing from Wikipedia, and article of "Greater Romania (political concept)" tries to fix this deficiency. The name of the article is irrelevant too. If "Greater Romania" did not fancy Wiki editors it could be called "Pan-Romanianism" or simply "Romanian nationalism". Fakirbakir (talk) 11:28, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Probably the development of Romanian nationalism article (independently of National awakening of Romania), that would also treat the concept of Greater Romania is the best solution. Currently Romanian nationalism is also missing from Template:Ethnic nationalism Avpop (talk) 11:54, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1, Page of Romanian nationalism has never existed it simply redirects to National awakening of Romania. "National awakening of Romania" has nothing to do with 20th century and contemporary events. 2, "Concept of Greater Romania" is a notable topic, there are multiple sources about it. Therefore, there is no "real" reason for deletion. 3, The title may be subject to dispute, because the concept is connected to Romanian nationalism, BUT the debate about moving an article does not belong here Wikipedia:Requested moves. Fakirbakir (talk) 12:19, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

National awakening of Romania is only a component of the Romanian nationalism, it defines only its birth (the awakening period). Romanian nationalism article should also include information about the era when the nationalism is "awake" (info about the 20th and 21st century). Unlike Greater Spain, Greater Portugal, Greater Croatia or Greater Finland, the state Greater Romania is not something imaginary, it actually existed. It is more than an idea. When you say "Greater Romania" you univocally refer to the interwar boundaries. The goal of nationalists is the recreation of the historical Greater Romania, not the creation of a conceptual Greater Romania that would include ethnic Romanians from limitrophe areas. No nationalists intend the annexation of Northern Maramuresh or Romanian-populated areas from Serbia (File:Timvlach.jpg) which were never part of the Romanian state. Avpop (talk) 12:34, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The title may be subject to dispute. However, the borders of interwar Romania do not really count. They do not cover all pan-nationalist claims. The nationalists, for instance, wanted more Serbian, Hungarian territories before (and after) the establishment of Greater Romania. Also, in the early nineties, Romania claimed Ukrainian territories which were occupied by fascist Romania in WW2. Those regions did not belong to interwar Romania "Greater Romania". Their demands changed in accordance with the then ideology. We talk about more than one hundred years.Fakirbakir (talk) 13:05, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The topic of interwar (and wartime) Romanian demands over the entire Banat is an interesting one, but not particularly connected to an ideology. It belongs, most logically, at Banat and subsidiary articles. The claim that Romania under Ion Iliescu claimed the Transnistria Governorate is absurd and should be ignored. The fact is that in 1997, the two states agreed to reaffirm the border imposed in 1947; a border treaty was signed in 2003. - Biruitorul ^Talk 17:39, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The case of Banat typically belongs to the subject of pan-Romanianism. The pan-Romanianist concept of Greater Romania was the guiding principle for interwar Romanian politicians. The fact is that Bucharest declared territorial demands on Ukraine in the early nineties.[6][7] I still maintain that Romanian (pan)nationalism should be included on Wikipedia. Fakirbakir (talk) 18:07, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting and noteworthy topic indeed. Feel free to expand Romania–Ukraine relations, rather than link the 1992-97 events to a fictitious "Greater Romania (political concept)", when no reliable source does so. - Biruitorul ^Talk 00:27, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The political concept has many sources. (e.g. "The concept of Greater Romania consisted of the idea of uniting all ethnic Romanians and all the adjacent areas where they lived into one ethnically pure state"[8]) If you did not fancy the current name of the article we could rename it to "Pan-Romanianism".Fakirbakir (talk) 09:46, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am quite reserved about the concept of Pan-Romanianism, the interested editors are asked to check Talk:Greater_Romania_(political_concept)#Pan-Romanianism talk page thread. Avpop (talk) 09:53, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My specific point, Fakirbakir, is that none of the sources treat Romanian claims on Ukraine in the early 1990s as a function of a "Greater Romania (political concept)", but as a development in Romania–Ukraine relations. Your linking those claims to "Greater Romania (political concept)" is thus original research and synthesis. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:18, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting that the political concept of Greater Romania did not influence Romanian politicians? Actually, regarding the events of the early nineties, Bucharest is always depicted as "nationalist", "pan-Romanianist" in the sources. Would you like some citations? Fakirbakir (talk) 14:58, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge This area definitely needs some articles pruning and the content merging together. I have almost 0 knowledge of the relevant portions of European history and politics here, however reading the four or five relevant articles left me no better off.

Greater Romania (political concept)
Greater Romania
National awakening of Romania
Unification of Romania and Moldova
Kingdom of Romania
Greater Romania Party
Romania
Romanian nationalism <--I realise this is a redirect
Pan-Romanianism <--I realise this is a redirect

are all related concepts but probably don't need their own articles. It feels like, from my admittedly very limited view, there's enough content and topical difference here for 4 long articles or 5 moderate articles, not the 7 we have above. They're all very bitty and forky. I would like to see some merge proposals in detail however before comitting. SPACKlick (talk) 11:34, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your trying to fix the problem. In my humble opinion:

1. "Kingdom of Romania" has to be kept, it is an important topic.
2. "Greater Romania Party" should be kept, it is about a political party.
3. "Greater Romania" is a poorly written article and its content should be merged with Kingdom of Romania, or, we should rename it to "Interwar Romania" and seriously expand it. The name "Greater Romania" should be redirected to "Kingdom of Romania" (or, to "Romanian nationalism", the problem is the term "Greater Romania" has multiple meanings")
4. "National awakening of Romania" is about the beginning of Romanian nationalism, should be merged with "Romanian nationalism"
5. "Greater Romania (political concept)" can be kept, or can be merged with "Romanian nationalism"
6. "Unification of Romania and Moldova" should be merged with "Romanian nationalism" or "Greater Romania (political concept)"
7. "Pan-Romanianism" should be redirected to "Greater Romania (political concept)" or "Romanian nationalism"

Fakirbakir (talk) 14:37, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the already mentioned articles, there is also an article called National Communism in Romania which deals with the nationalist component of the ideology followed by Communist Romania. Avpop (talk) 12:29, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Fakirbakir, Anonimu and Borsoka. As the topic is notable, well-sourced and does not covered by any other article on Wikipedia. Saying that it is a FORK of the Greater Romania or the National awakening of Romania articles is a nonsense. It is like saying that the article "Nazism" (which is a political concept) is a fork of the "Nazi Germany" (which was a state) or the "Early timeline of Nazism" (which is a historical article about the roots) articles. (Note: the topics of my examples are accidental, this by no means indicates that I put an equation sign between Nazism and the political concept of Greater Romania). Obviously, Greater Romania as a (still existing) political concept is not the same as the Kingdom of Romania (1920-1940), which was a state and sometimes referred to as Greater Romania (which should indeed be renamed), or the early days of Romanian nationalism, called "national awakening". Those who claim such things make a category mistake. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 11:49, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PS: The fact that the political concept of Greater Romania is a notable topic is not only reflected by, e.g., that there is even a political party (România Mare) which advocates such views, but even here on Wikipedia there are several editors who have an administrative map of the Interwar Romania (from around 1930s) on their user pages, with the text "Romania - the way it should be", which is indicative of the phenomenon that they sympathize with this (clearly existing) political concept. Hence, it deserves an own article. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 11:49, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Koertefa What about my suggestion of expanding Romanian nationalism that would also cover the topic of the Romanian irredentism? Avpop (talk) 12:42, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such article as "Romanian nationalism", as it is currently redirected to the "National awakening of Romania", which is about a historical period mainly in the 19th-early 20th centuries. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 14:08, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't now an article with that name, the proposal was to create it, cause National awakening of Romania is only a component of the Romanian nationalism. Avpop (talk) 14:11, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Koertefa, Wikipedia user pages are surely to be taken into account when making a decision over whether to keep or delete an article. Makes perfect sense to me in the context of WP:V, WP:RS and WP:PSTS.

Speaking of Wikipedia memes, there's a popular one among certain editors to the effect that Romania was enlarged in 1920. While that is indeed the date of the treaty of Trianon, the meme is nevertheless ahistorical. All the Romanian provinces proclaimed union with Romania during 1918: Bessarabia (March 27, effective November 27), Bukovina (November 15), Transylvania (December 1, although not fully effective until the following spring), Banat (December 1, effective the following August). Moreover, reliable source after source reiterates that Greater Romania came into being in 1918.

As to your broader argument, the fact that an article is "well-sourced" does not necessarily mean it covers a real-life topic. What we have here is a pastiche of totally disparate works ranging from histories of early modern Romania to political studies of the Romanian modern extreme right, from which the article creator has extracted all possible mentions of Greater Romania and concluded this forms a valid topic. Unfortunately, that's not how legitimate scholarship works. There are no coherent references to the ideology, tracing its development from start to present, and given that, we must conclude this is a synthesis, a content fork worthy of deletion. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:18, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can not deny the fact that the "concept of Greater Romania" exists.Fakirbakir (talk) 14:36, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. After two relistings, it would have been nice if there was more participation here. Closing as keep per the two "keep or merge" !votes below, which is the general (albeit weak due to lack of participation) consensus in this short discussion. Also, both !votes in the discussion have countered the notion in the nomination that the sources in the article lack an indication of notability for the topic. A merge discussion can continue on an article talk page if so desired. (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:36, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rapid Eye Movement (REM) sleep Behavior Disorder Screening Questionnaire (RBDSQ)

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

References don't seem to indicate notability, nor does the article text itself; having "the potential to be useful" does not indicate notability. IagoQnsi (talk) 22:50, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:08, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge into Rapid eye movement behavior disorder - There are 4 sources in the article that are specifically about it. At the very least, if notability is still questioned, it is well documented and important enough to be merged. - Sidelight12 ^Talk 12:53, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The article was tagged for deletion 2 minutes into its creation, that suggests no effort was put into researching if sources could be found. I realize the article was not developed as it is now, and it had one article solely about this questionnaire, and another supporting reference. - Sidelight 12 ^Talk

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:26, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge into Rapid eye movement behavior disorder - Agree with the above. Notability seems like it's there, but unclear if it should have its own article at this point. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 15:21, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:47, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Romalı_Perihan

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

The page contains and built upon personal interviews and is thereof made up of personal testimonies, most of them are not based on realities. Like this person asserts being Princess of Esfandiari-Bakhtiari, however Esfandiari-Bakhtiari is not this person, as can be seen from the page Soraya_Esfandiary-Bakhtiari. There are GNG violations: No significant coverages about the personal background, nonreliable - nonverifiable content, sources are not secondary nearly all links direct us to interviews with the named person, some links are dead. These interviews cannot be used as references, in most of the cases links referenced do not include any information about the paragraph or sentence it is marked for. Same goes for most of the content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emrahgunduz (talk • contribs) 20:34, 22 April 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:12, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:26, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. L Faraone 21:12, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Real Richie Rich

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

No indication of notability or even significance, other than unreferenced claim of association with LA Dream Team. Only Google results are the artist's own social media pages. IagoQnsi (talk) 22:48, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Someone posted this on the talk page, presumably the article author

The Real Richie Rich (Not to be confused with the rapper Richie Rich), he was uncredited for the the rest of 90s and 80s. I can get you to him, papers, fax, call or anything. Yes hes on IMDB for his production on the film "The Dark Party". Give me some weeks to improve it and I will need help from you, appreciated.

~~Keep~~ - Delete - I couldn't find anything to demonstrate notability. edit: my brain said delete, my fingers had a brain fart. Bali88 (talk) 22:55, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article states that the artist was a member of a hip hop group that, while underground, was signed to a major label, MCA, released three albums, and was active for at least a decade. While the Allmusic biography of the group does not specifically list him as member (or provide a comprehensive list of members), I found one third-party source, a listing for a CD on Ebay, that says the release features "The Real Richie Rich of the LA Dream Team": http://www.ebay.ca/itm/Chicano-Rap-CD-Joe-Serious-Serious-Business-Dominator-Sara-S-Big-Qluso-/171226767220

If he was a member of an active and notable hip-hop troupe, which seems to be the case, people should be able to find out about it on Wikipedia. Plus, who knows what information could make it to the web and get sourced in this article in the months and years to come. I say it stays. --TheRealDoctorJoe (talk) 23:08, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How does wikipedia view IMDB? I had it in my head that IMDB was viewed as a tertiary source, much like wikipedia and was user edited. Is IMDB considered a reliable source? If he did what you're saying, he may meet notability requirements. However, I'm hesitant to add him with the idea that more sources may appear. I wasn't able to find anything to back up notability. We should list this with music related discussions to see if any music editors will take an interest in the article and improve it. Someone else will have to do that: I'm too new to know how to do that. :-) Bali88 (talk) 23:24, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited, so being involved with LA Dream Team does not automatically make The Real Richie Rich notable. Even if it did, Richie Rich is not even mentioned in the dream team's article (which, as a side note, makes quite a few unsupported claims and is rather low on references). Additionally, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball; we can't keep an article in hopes that its subject will become verifiably notable in the future. If a subject becomes notable later, its article can be rewritten, but until it becomes notable it shouldn't have an article. -IagoQnsi (talk) 00:43, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Official policy is that Wikipedia views IMDB as "generally not a reliable source" since the pages are user-edited, but really most of the information there is factual and the actual biographies cannot be edited by normal users. However, pretty much any article on an actor, director, or film cites IMDB pages without issue. The feeling I get is that this guy is both notable and legit, there just isn't a ton of information about him on the web at this point. Some new information has been added since I weighed in on this discussion but a lot of it seems pretty advert. It's by no means beyond help though. I'm going to tag it and try to wiki it up into a passable article. --TheRealDoctorJoe (talk) 23:36, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: The article creator appears to be editing furiously as we speak. Best to sit back and watch for now. --TheRealDoctorJoe (talk) 23:52, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nice. I hope he can pull it off Bali88 (talk) 23:57, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Draft Notability is not inherited. The article is too promotional, and there's no evidence of coverage in reliable sources. If he's underground, then I applaud him for choosing integrity over fame, but that makes it difficult to write a reliably sourced article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:44, 23 April 2014 (UTC) For what it's worth, the creator of the page has left messages on my talk page. He says that he's contacted The Real Richie Rich, who has indicated that he may grant a few interviews to help establish notability. I think there's a fair chance that TRRR will satisfy our notability requirements soon. I'd recommend that we at least move the page to draft space or userfy it. If the interviews never surface, we can always return later. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:42, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:13, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:26, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. After two relistings, there's no consensus here. A merge discussion can continue on an article talk page if desired. (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:56, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

General Jewish Labour Bund in Belarus

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

I have never, and I've searched a lot for it, come across any reference that would indicate the existence of a Belarusian chapter of the Bund. To be clear, the Bund was present in many areas that today are within the limits of the Republic of Belarus, but they were not organized as a 'Belarusian' Bund. Rather, cities like Minsk and Gomel were epicentres of the Russian Bund. The Minsk and Gomel conferences mentioned in the article were All-Russian conferences, not congresses of a chapter in Belarus. The three sentences about Bundist participation in the BNR structure can be included in the main Bund party article. Soman (talk) 19:37, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Shalom11111 (talk) 12:35, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because (a) the nominator's proposals are self-conflicting, he is proposing a "delete and merge" which cannot be done. If he wants a "merge and redirect" then he should say so, so he needs to clarify and make up his mind before rushing to a formal AfD. (b) The article does cite at least two WP:V and WP:RS, that is good enough for what is basically not much more than a stub. What is needed is further discussion and patience per WP:DONOTDEMOLISH, not a deletion of this WP:N material. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 06:59, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- But the refs do not in any way indicate the existence of a Belarusian Bund party. They talk about the Russian Bund, for which there already is an article. For me, it's essentially a WP:FORK. --Soman (talk) 20:32, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hi Soman, but you cannot throw out the baby with the bathwater. The correct thing for you to do is to ask for a "Merge [and retain all relevant content not found in the larger article] and Redirect" (back) to the larger General Jewish Labour Bund in Lithuania, Poland and Russia article. Instead your nomination sounds confused, just rushing to get rid of something because you do not like it is not good enough. Besides, a topic like this would need WP:EXPERTISE in the convoluted history of the Jews in Russia, Belarus and the former USSR not just in English but especially in Russian, Polish and Yiddish. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 07:00, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - If you see Talk:General_Jewish_Labour_Bund_in_Belarus, I raised concerns about the factual accuracy of the article in November 2009, so I can hardly be accused to 'rushing'. None of the other editors, nor in the article nor in the Bund Task Force (of which I'm part, so the WP:LIKE comment is a bit misplaced). As per the 'baby', the three sentences that could justify a merge rather than a deletion are unsourced, I couldn't find anything on Google Books. --Soman (talk) 08:05, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:15, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:25, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge any verifiable elements. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 17:47, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. (soft) slakr^\ talk / 02:50, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Miller (Director of books)

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

Fails Wikipedia:GNG Pro crast in a tor (talk) 18:45, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:17, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete - No attempt at notability made in the article, and a web search for '"robert miller" internet archive' turns up many PR snippets mentioning his name, but no articles about him as a person separate from his current role at the Internet Archive. His job title, "Director of Books", is oddly included in the wikipedia title, so article was likely created by a novice editor, who is likely employed by the Internet Archive as they have only edited Internet Archive-related pages. Pro crast in a tor (talk) 02:19, 1 May 2014 (UTC) Pro crast in a tor (talk) 02:14, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:25, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 21:12, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Quarry at La Quinta

AfDs for this article:

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

The majority of this article is about where the course ranks out of other courses. The reliable sources found are about just the rank of the course and per WP:RANK - doesn't make it automatically notable. It was previously written like a promotion, mentioning all the amenities the course and club offer. LADY LOTUS • TALK 17:42, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:44, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:44, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:44, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:44, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources cited are weak and provide no detail about the club; the mention of a couple of notable members does not help the club's notability. On a side note, the same seems to be true of most of the articles listed at Category:Golf clubs and courses in California; I suspect the majority of them would not survive an AfD discussion. --MelanieN (talk) 16:05, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:18, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:24, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There does not appear to be much descriptive non-commercial content on this golf course beyond statistics and rankings. Without that, there is insufficient basis for a separate article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:44, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 Supply_chain_management#Certification. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:06, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Certified Supply Chain Professional

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

This doesn't appear to be a thing so much as a cluster of buzzwords that people have randomly strung together a few times. Only 255 unique Google hits, and the few hits on Google Books do not elucidate the term. The books sources already in the article are mostly repeats of each other, too. I honestly can't understand a word of this because it's so thickly layered in buzzwords and jargon. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:04, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. -IagoQnsi (talk) 22:45, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Searching for "Supply Chain Professional" certification gets 212 hits on Gscholar, 734 hits on GBooks and 699,000 results on Google web. Supply chain management is a big part of manufacturing and distribution in business. Beyond hit counts, there university programs leading to certification, such as at Rutgers business school and the URI college of business administration and some coverage of certification in books like Next Level Supply Management Excellence and Guide to Supply Chain Management by the Economist Staff. It looks like a notable topic to me. The article itself looks like a fork of Supply chain management#Certification. I can see where the article would be opaque to those learning this information for the first time. The article could be written in less jargon-laden and less promotional language. There is likely some synthesis and OR in the big table of certification programs and topics. But it seems sensible enough to me and improving the prose and table is a surmountable problem, per WP:SURMOUNTABLE. A notable topic and surmountable article problems suggests keeping the article. --Mark viking (talk) 00:51, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Mark viking: So are you gonna surmount it, or just pass the buck? Because that second option is so successful. It's why we have unsourced and crappy articles dating back to the Stone Age around here. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:11, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@TenPoundHammer: Done. I took a quick pass through it, adding some citations, removing promotional material, and simplifying the prose. I removed the table, but kept the list of topics as verifiable. More could be done; I encourage you to join in. --Mark viking (talk) 22:10, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@TenPoundHammer: Please note that WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Also, thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:48, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the rationale of User:Mark viking above, with a significant possibility of a merge to Supply chain management - Certification. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:44, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:24, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:23, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

merge and redirect to Supply_chain_management#Certification. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:51, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Supply_chain_management#Certification to avoid giving readers the impression that "Certified Supply Chain Professional" is a proper term. Abductive (reasoning) 16:56, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 Fiona McIntosh. slakr^\ talk / 02:55, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Trinity (novel series)

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

Non-notable novel series. Mikeblas (talk) 03:03, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Fiona McIntosh. The problem here is partially the time period, since this was sort of when a lot of sources weren't on the Internet like they are now, so there is a very real possibility that sources could exist. However... the problem is that I can't really find a huge amount of information to really guarantee that these offline sources actually exist. I find some mention here and there, but mostly in relation to McIntosh's later works. She's definitely notable, but I don't really think that these are notable outside of herself at this point in time. If anyone can find sources in RS, I'm willing to be swayed, but most of what I'm finding are blog reviews, brief mentions, merchant links, and other places we can't use as a RS. I think redirecting with history would be a good choice here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:48, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:18, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:56, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Medical Marijuana Assistance Program of America

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

Campaign organization with no notability that I can detect. Spinning Spark 17:59, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete a search on Google shows that there is no real relevance to it.Staglit (talk) 23:33, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:07, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:08, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:08, 23 April 2014 (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 ♔ 03:10, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No demonstration of notability pertaining to this topic. I agree with Spinning Spark's assessment. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 06:02, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Clearly passes WP:GNG / WP:ORGDEPTH as per having received significant coverage in reliable sources:

CNN
High Times
The Denver Post
Denver Westword
Huffington Post
Huffington Post
Huffington Post
Coloradoan.com (subscription required)

– NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:28, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:14, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, has news articles about it and only it, seems harmless. Abductive (reasoning) 17:01, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per the sources Northamerica1000 located. I'm willing to pass off some of the sources as local, and The High Times is clearly not a disinterested observer, but the CNN and HuffPost items are enough to qualify on their own. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:20, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. SmartSE (talk) 20:44, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hereford Youth Orchestra

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

Insignificant Staglit (talk) 22:28, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:50, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:50, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I am not finding sufficient coverage to establish notability/satisfy WP:GNG. Gongshow talk 05:44, 27 April 2014 (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 ♔ 03:10, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:13, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A kids orchestra in a small town. No refs. No assertion of notability in the article. Szzuk (talk) 21:07, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 Blue Planet Software. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:55, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maya Rogers

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

CSD#A7 declined because subject is a CEO of a notable company. Article created by some related person with the subject, by User:Phoxinus_brachyurus (Special:Contributions/Phoxinus_brachyurus).

Unable to find sources to establish notability of the subject. It does not meet WP:BIO & WP:GNG standard. Therefore, it doesn't seem, suitable for inclusion, for now. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 00:31, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:04, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:04, 24 April 2014 (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 ♔ 03:13, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've tried to find sources as well, but haven't found anything on GNews and only unrelated people by the same name on DDG. Only non-affiliated source is now a website that copied a tweet. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 14:07, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:12, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Blue Planet Software, as the CEO who has not received adequate coverage for notability. --Bejnar (talk) 01:06, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. slakr^\ talk / 02:58, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wilma Johnson

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

There does not seem sufficient reliable independent sources for notability, and her work is not in the permanent collection of museums DGG ( talk ) 01:00, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:30, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The performance art collective of which she was a founder, Neo Naturists, is reasonably notable. I find less to show her separate notability, but her Surf Mama project got some attention on BBC Radio 4 [9], and The Mail on Sunday published a long feature written by her [10]. Maybe a merge/redirect back to Neo Naturists would be appropriate unless and until more individual coverage shows up. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:24, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:02, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:02, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:02, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Due to the imminent publication of Wilma Johnson's memoir Surf Mama [11] there will be a substantial amount of accompanying press and therefore we have reason to believe this entry is notable. She was a founding member of the Neo Naturists and although perhaps less well-known than other of her contemporaries nevertheless played an important role in this movement.

--mathilde761 (talk) 16:46, 25 April 2014

WP:CRYSTALBALL speculation of potential future press coverage is not evidence of attained notability; and can you clarify your use of the "we" voice? AllyD (talk) 06:38, 27 April 2014 (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 ♔ 03:15, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:09, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 13:47, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:03, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hadith of Mubahala

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

This is a major instance of original research that may not be readily apparent, unless the reader also takes note of the Mubahala article. That article is about the actual topic which is quite notable; this article is merely a direct copy paste of that hadith - which is a primary source - as well as an introductory section above that which is pure, unadulterated original research/personal reflection on the part of the article's creator.
There is no doubt that mubahala is a notable topic, but why is this individual hadith notable? A search on Google Books reveals lots of books mentioning mubahala and Eid al-Mubahila which are clearly notable, but the only mention I find of this hadith at all is a single source just mentioning that this hadith exists in a list of other hadiths which exist. I would suggest that this be merged into Mubahala, but that isn't possible because this article is entirely copy paste of a primary source and OR on the part of the creator; there's nothing that can be merged which isn't violating some policy or another. It should just be deleted. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:25, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:28, 23 April 2014 (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 ♔ 03:37, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:08, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:06, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Bombardier

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

Promotional BLP. Some of the apparently respectable sources are written by himself. If he is notable, it would take a through rewrite. DGG ( talk ) 03:33, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Harsh (talk) 10:27, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Harsh (talk) 10:29, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are newspaper articles about him in La Presse[12] and The Gazette[13] and in other publications[14]. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:58, 24 April 2014 (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 ♔ 03:37, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:08, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is routine interview-based fluff not independent researched stuff. Stuartyeates (talk)

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

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

The result was delete. Rounding to a soft delete; whether or not a redirect is appropriate is not clear, but feel free to make one if desired (or take it to RfD if someone makes it and you don't feel it appropriate, etc). slakr^\ talk / 04:40, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okstad School

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

Non-notable primary school; grades 1-4. We don't generally have stand-alone articles for such schools, unless they are especially notable, which does not appear to be the case here. Epeefleche (talk) 08:07, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Geschichte (talk) 14:41, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of schools in Norway#Trondheim as a normal solution. The Whispering Wind (talk) 18:51, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I dug around looking for sources and could not find any which would support notability. Arsenikk ^(talk) 16:50, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I believe like Whispering Wind that that a standard solution is to redirect primary schools to an appropriate page. I believe the article "List of schoools in Norway" is a problematic article in itself though, in that it is too wide in scope. It is no good idea to let such a list article include every primary schools in Norway when we are not supposed to have articles for most of those schools. Lists are typically supposed to include blue linked articles. Iselilja (talk) 23:52, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The spirit of WP:BLP1E is a combination of the core of the biographies of living persons policy (BLP), which has special emphasis as a measure of avoiding doing harm on otherwise-low-profile individuals, its tie-in to the neutral point of view policy (NPOV) (more specifically undue weight and bias), and general notability. BLP1E is really just for bright-line cases where you can safely ignore the neutral-and-balanced-biography analysis of content because the person is himself otherwise unnotable and the biography portion therefore simply doesn't matter. Here, although the person mentioned might incidentally be notable on some technicality, the article overwhelmingly acts to cover a negative event in the person's life. The event itself has no article of its own, while this article otherwise makes no attempt to serve as a proper biography. That said, this should be considered a semi-soft delete due to the assertion that the person might be notable, so feel free to re-create the article as a well-sourced, balanced biography, and then, should there then be a question of whether the individual is notable, another AfD can take place. slakr^\ talk / 05:23, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ghulam Muhammad Vastanvi

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

Person who is noted, and only then a bit, for a single thing. I can't see that any of the sources discuss him outside of his commentary that lead to him no longer being vice chancellor. This is basically a rehash of a single run of news articles and falls under Wikipedia:BLP#Subjects_notable_only_for_one_event Peripitus (Talk) 03:05, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Harsh (talk) 10:34, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The very definition of violating notability for one event.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:44, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:17, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment By WP:PROF#6, the vice-chancellor of a major academic institution is automatically notable - so dismissal from such a post can hardly count as WP:BLP1E. And the Darul Uloom Deoband, as the leading seminary of one of the major movements in contemporary Islam, is certainly at least a major teaching institution and, at the very least, an argument needs to be made as to why WP:PROF#6 should not apply in this case. Even if it does not apply, the post also seems to have some religious standing and, while we seem to have no explicit specific notability guidelines for religious officials, there does seem to be agreement on a strong presumption of notability for holders of certain Christian religious posts, and we might at least want to guard against systemic bias by considering whether this post would be comparable. PWilkinson (talk) 18:22, 25 April 2014 (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 ♔ 03:38, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:03, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think he clears WP:NACADEMICS because he was vice-chancellor of Darul Uloom Deoband. Jyoti (talk) 05:13, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 07:54, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Head fake

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

Does not appear to be a notable, encyclopedic topic in its own right. Consists almost entirely of a dictionary definition, and already exists on Wiktionary at wikt:head fake. Nearly an A5 speedy delete, but for the lack of prior discussion. Ibadibam (talk) 18:44, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom or possibly redirect to Feint. Nobody's discoursed at length on the subject, so it fails WP:GNG. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:25, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:10, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Very much a dueled meaning term with significant coverage in regards to the market. More sources can be added. CNBC, NBC News, just two of many. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 22:04, 29 April 2014 (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 ♔ 03:51, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is covered in detail in numerous books about sports such as Coaching Youth Soccer and Football End Play. It also appears in the Last Lecture. Andrew (talk) 16:47, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you have access to these materials, and if so, could you use them to expand the article? Ibadibam (talk) 17:53, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as nominator - There may be enough sourced material to develop a meaningful article on the sports meaning of the term, similar to layup. If we reach that point, would it make sense to have a section "As a metaphor" that discusses the financial and philosophical analogies? Ibadibam (talk) 17:53, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:01, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a business term and tactic, a political term and tactic, and an athletic move, this supersedes being merely a dictionary definition. Sources about the topic include:

Getting Started in Commodities. pp. 202-204.
Services and Business Computing Solutions with XML. p. 86.
Football's Eagle & Stack Defenses. p. 158.
Teach'n Basketball Guide for Parents. p. 64.
Fools and Knaves. pp. 189-190
Ultimate Techniques and Tactics. Quote: "The head fake actually involves most of the body, but the head movements are exaggerated to give the impression that motion in a particular direction is imminent. Once again, you hope the defender reacts to that immediate movement, but ..."
Coaching Youth Soccer: The Guide for Coaches and Parents. p. 25.
The Sports of the Times. p. 183.
Motor Behavior: Connecting Mind and Body for Optimal Performance. p. 165.

– NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:21, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per User:Northamerica1000. Can you please add those sources so this meets WP:HEY? Bearian (talk) 22:03, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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) 22:10, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Kodomo no Jikan characters

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

Overly detailed. See info on plot length and indiscriminate collection of information and Wikipedia:Fancruft. The information on the main page is more than enough. See main article with very in-depth character section here: Kodomo no Jikan#Characters. This is a work unreleased in English. OKNoah (talk) 08:05, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article Kodomo no Jikan includes a list of characters as around 50% of its content, so this is unneeded duplication. If appropriate any extra material on characters could be merged into the main article. Imaginatorium (talk) 14:47, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SPINOUT, character lists are also generally kept as they explain essential parts of the story's plot. There is also a bit about this under WP:FICT. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:18, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Found here are character toy reviews [15], [16], [17]. Character songs (This one being on billboard Japan) [18]. Here is a link to story memoirs [19]. Those links should be able to help expand on the characters and I only looked up Rin first. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:40, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is not that they need to be expanded. This article goes beyond explaining essential parts. --OKNoah (talk) 05:02, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And those essential parts are explained in at least one of the sources I provided. The point being there is coverage on it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:16, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is no problem having a list of the characters. The problem is that there are two lists of characters -- one in the main article, and one here. These two lists should be merged. Note that the guideline says (very sensibly) "there may be a separate article" for the list of characters, depending on length; in which case the list should be removed from the main article and replaced by the link to the separate article. Imaginatorium (talk) 08:23, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would support expanding the plot and the removal of the character section on the main article as that is what I see on FA class articles. Character lists are on main article pages when there is no secondary article that covers the characters. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:16, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Character lists being spun-off are acceptable. However, the article does need some cleanup, and the character list in the Kodomo no Jikan article needs to be removed as being redundant. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:20, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is not whether they are acceptable, but whether this particular one is acceptable. --OKNoah (talk) 16:25, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Any problems can be solved by normal editing practices. Deletion should be a last resort. Character list are perfectly acceptable, always have been, and always will be. Dream Focus 21:34, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all the above. The issues are entirely editorial, and can be fixed through editing. Having a character list in the parent article is really down to editor preference. I personally prefer to put a link to the character link in the plot section and wikilink any character names to that article, however there isn't anything inherently wrong with how it's set up now (one is a summary, the other is not).SephyTheThird (talk) 22:29, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. slakr^\ talk / 06:22, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jainde

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

No source at all, seems creation of the editor who started the article. Mkrestin (talk) 06:00, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there are lots of minor tribes, clans and other ethnic groups that you won't find on the internet or in any published source. But if WP:V is not met before the AfD expires, I say delete it. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 13:55, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Possible hoax. Candleabracadabra (talk) 15:10, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:52, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. slakr^\ talk / 06:23, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Event Standard Syndication

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

This article replaces a different one on the same subject which had already been deleted via WP:PROD because it was promotional and because the subject lacked notability (see User talk:Hypecal helper). This latest recreation doesn't have the promo issues, but from what I can tell the subject still hasn't achieved any coverage in reliable sources. Psychonaut (talk) 08:08, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a strict inclusionist, I think this resource is valid in its existence despite its niche notoriety and should be valuable to store in a reference text bound only by digital storage constraints, so long as it speaks accurately to the topic. In a way I am choosing to Ignore all rules. I think Wikipedia is better by capturing the full breadth of human expression. As noted, there are no promotional issues. Further, I added references to the originators of this xml file format, a company named Hypecal from Barcelona, Spain. A record of presenting this file format is provided by coverage in a Spanish online magazine. I cited documentation of the open source MIT license applied to implementation software written in php and ruby, works published in the nature of their medium. Mattsenate (talk) 09:45, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not sure about the reliability of the Spanish source, but this is the entirety of what it has to say about ESS: "Hypecal es una empresa que ha creado un nuevo estándar, llamado ESS, que permite compartir y publicar información sobre eventos y actualizarla en tiempo real." Unfortunately, a single sentence cannot count as "significant coverage" as required by the notability guideline. —Psychonaut (talk) 10:10, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Normally I'd agree with the sentiments expressed above but the internet is littered with the sad remnants of bright ideas. When I stumbled across this issue I was excited at first because it's an area of great interest to me, until I saw that there has been virtually zero activity since the launch a year ago and virtually zero references to it from third parties. This is yet another dead parrot, and not even noteworthy for being dead. It never even got off the ground. andy (talk) 11:07, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There have been commits to the php library as recent as 3 months ago and the wordpress plugin as recent as 5 months ago. I refrain from judging the work, other than the fact that open source software developers have published this XML file format and provided implementation libraries with open source licenses, which apparently was funded and supported by a company, as noted in the article. Mattsenate (talk) 10:08, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, but look how little coverage there is. Reading between the lines, this is a startup (which we don't publicise in wikipedia) that's trying to create a market and is offering a data protocol for free to try to jump start the market. Good luck to them but I still see no signs of notability. andy (talk) 10:47, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's a shame if the work of open source software developers, publishing content in the media and along standards of their community of practice, is not considered notable because of the mode by which the development is funded. I thought stating this explicitly may provide sufficient context. Mattsenate (talk) 18:08, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:52, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage in independent reliable sources, fails to meet general notability guidelines (WP:GNG). While I'm sometimes sympathetic to wanting to ignore some rules, as Mattsenate suggests, or stretch/relax rules, in this case the topic is not remotely close to meeting notability guidelines. Agyle (talk) 21:48, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:G11 slakr^\ talk / 06:27, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Free Moskow

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

No evidence of notability. No sources, and a check for sources failed to turn up anything that wasn't self-referential. There is a radio station, owned by a corporation with a very similar name, in Moskow, Idaho that is notable, but is unrelated to this topic. I hope I'm wrong, and someone finds independent, reliable sources, and thereby improves the article, but I have failed. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 13:40, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also strongly promotional tone, so after trimming only the fact that it's a show on UCLA Radio remains. Delete. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 13:51, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:51, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. slakr^\ talk / 06:30, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Kawanhee for Boys

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

No evidence of notability. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:14, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Not much found in the usual searches, other than listings in camp directories and very local news. Peter Fonda [20] and Enrique Iglesias [21] both attended this camp, and Iglesias said in an interview that it's where he first learned about "Anglo music". One of the owners was interviewed for a 1997 New York Times article about camps.[22] But despite the camp's age I didn't come up with much to show its particular significance in the wide world of Maine summer camps. The associated Kawanhee Inn gets positive mentions in travel sources (see GBooks for examples), and maybe an argument could be made that it's Wikipedia-notable as a hotel, but I didn't find enough to make that argument strongly. There might be enough to justify a mention of the inn and camp in the article for Weld, Maine as significant features of the town. --Arxiloxos (talk) 14:58, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan Singer also attended the camp for several years in the mid 1980s MorrisS (talk) 00:24, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:50, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:26, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article has two assertions of notability, that it is one of the oldest continuously operating summer camps in Maine and that it achieves the highest return rate of any camp in the U.S. These assertions should be specifically supported, but that is a matter of calling for improvement in editing by tagging and commenting at Talk page, not for AFD. I added a bit to the article, too, including quoting from a New York Times article that included a fair amount about the camp (which was referred-to above), plus another New York Times article that was exclusively about a significant fire at the camp that killed one of its founders, plus Guidestar-provided information about the financials of the camp. --do ncr am 16:06, 10 May 2014 (UTC) --do ncr am 00:39, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - Given the celebrities who went there and the age I'm surprised there's not more out there, but I'm not having luck sourcing it either. An organization's article can claim whatever fantastic statistic or historical import a Wikipedian decides to write, but if it's not backed up by reliable sources it can't be considered for these purposes (especially, as with the current example, if people are searching for sources to back up those statements and can't find any). --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 06:26, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, i did a little looking, and found some sources, mentioned above. I think there were more, and others could find more, too. I am not motivated to devote a lot of energy to this. Don't know if anyone else has, so you may be wrong with your implication are searching and can't find anything. And, there could be extensive off-line sources. This is one of a series of summer camp articles nominated for deletion, where wp:BEFORE seems not met. Others are: wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Camp Modin, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sitka Fine Arts Camp, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Forest Lake Camp, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Camp Ondessonk, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Falling Creek Camp, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Camp Rockmont for Boys. Most or all are heading for Keep decision, IMHO, because notability was already obvious or was more clearly established. I don't think we have to respond in detail to every one of many AFDs nominated in the same style. Disclosure: The deletion nominator has accused me of wp:canvass at some of these, for mentioning others in the series, which is nonsense IMHO, as what canvassing is about, is selectively posting to user talk pages. This is not selective, it is posting where random editors having many opinions show up, and it is relevant, and it not being broadcasted widely. --do ncr am 18:25, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your continued, partisan canvassing, about which you have been warned previously, remains unacceptable. The closer of the various AfDs should take it into account. It is not for you to refdefine what canvassing means; WP:CANVASS is clear (my emphasis): "canvassing which is done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way is considered inappropriate"; in one case, it is a further breach of your Arbcom restriction. This is because it compromises the normal consensus decision-making process, and therefore is generally considered disruptive behavior... Users with a prior history of disruptive canvassing, which they have previously been asked to discontinue, may be blocked immediately without further warning, if such an action is deemed to be necessary. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:36, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Total rubbish. Read the detail of wp:CANVASS and see that it is about selectively posting to Talk pages, which i did not do. I linked between multiple parallel AFDs, where there have been both positive voters and negative voters who are equally informed. Pigsonthewing even had to edit the accusation of canvassing at my Talk page after posting it, because the text so clearly did not apply. Don't threaten me, please, this seems personal, seems like a personal attack, seems to be disrupting the AFD discussion. --do ncr am 20:57, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Commenting on your clearly-apparent partisan canvassing is not a personal attack; but take it to WP:ANI if you disagree. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:03, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a comment on the canvassing issue, but without looking at the other AfDs I don't see any reason to assume bad faith on the part of the nominator.

I did factor in the sources you mentioned when I made my comments, though. I searched myself, as well. As the unspecific possibility of off-line sources is not a compelling argument to me, I remain in the delete camp on this one. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 22:05, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:09, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Modin

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

No evidence of notability. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:14, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Covered in multiple scholarly books [23][24][25] and more evident at GBooks. "As the first Hebrew-speaking camp, Modin became the prototype for camps sponsored by every branch of the community, from socialist Zionists to Orthodox Jews." [26] --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:15, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Those appear to be minor mentions, not the significant coverage required by WP:GNG. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:49, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The sources provided by Arxiloxos, particularly the last two, does demonstrate significant enough coverage passing WP:GNG.--Oakshade (talk) 19:20, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Really? The second of those two says of Camp Modin, "An ad in the February 12, 1926 issue of the Jewish Chronicle, for Camp Montrey, for boys, and Camp Owaissa, for girls, exhorted readers to, 'Entrust your Children with a Newark Educator'", and nothing more. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:25, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Just because one source of several provided is an andvert, that doesn't disqualify the others. I didn't feel like typing out "except the advert one" because usually editors understand that but it seems I need to in this case. But in this case, it's not even an ad but a secondary source adding commentary about an historic ad of this topic, yet another acceptable source. --Oakshade (talk) 21:43, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sorry, the GBooks link didn't focus on the correct page and may have caused some confusion. There's more substantive discussion about Camp Modin on the next page (p. 167), where it talks about the camp as an early model of a private Jewish-oriented summer camp, noting that it was "both kosher and Zionistic" and that one counselor was the distinguished rabbi and teacher Milton Steinberg. This link might work better: [27] Anyway, I think the other links are significant and substantive as well. --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:09, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:50, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 13:49, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per several Keep arguments above. Is the nominator going through some list or category of summer camps and nominating them all for deletion, indiscriminately? Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Camp Kawanhee for Boys is one other where I voted "Keep", too. --do ncr am 00:38, 10 May 2014 (UTC) --do ncr am 21:52, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. slakr^\ talk / 06:32, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sitka Fine Arts Camp

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

No evidence of notability. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:15, 30 April 2014 (UTC) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:15, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete The only thing that is mildy notable is "In 2005, was selected by the National Endowment for the Arts as one of 25 exceptional summer arts programs in the country." and that is backed up by a goverment site announcing an award (I assume, the link is dead), not a WP:THIRDPARTY source discussing the camp and the award, if this camp is truly notable that should be easy to find.CombatWombat42 (talk) 15:20, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:49, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm finding substantial coverage in reliable independent sources for this camp and will add some of them to the article. The awards and recognitions it has received also help establish notability. Candleabracadabra (talk) 13:57, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the camp's buildings and campus are historic. They were once Sheldon Jackson College, the oldest higher ed school in Alaska. So that really makes it a slam dunk for notability. Candleabracadabra (talk) 14:13, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Is the nominator going through some list or category of summer camps and nominating them all for deletion, indiscriminately? I asked this question in another one of the similar AFDs, and the nominator didn't answer the question. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Camp Kawanhee for Boys is one other, out of 5 or more ongoing summer camp AFDs, where I have voted Keep. --do ncr am 00:36, 10 May 2014 (UTC) --do ncr am 21:54, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking in depth coverage in independent sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:47, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. More sources found and added to the article. The institution has received statewide coverage in reliable sources (and even a little bit outside Alaska).--Arxiloxos (talk) 20:56, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
merge and redirect to Sheldon Jackson College since much of the coverage is related to this entity. (change of !vote) Stuartyeates (talk) 21:37, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. slakr^\ talk / 06:33, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Robbins Miller

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

Biography of a person of questionable notability. The sources are trivial listings, mere mentions, connected sources, and a NYT piece apparently written by the subject or his wife. Fails WP:BIO. - Mr X 15:52, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, without prejudice to recreation in the event he can be shown to actually be notable. As far as I can tell from the article, its sources, and my own brief search, there's no hint that he meets WP:GNG. The only reference actually about the subject is the NYT piece, which is a profile of couples who have made it to 25 years of marriage, hardly a basis for notability for Wikipedia purposes. (Now, notability in my family, that would be a different matter!) Given the claim that he founded the "Center for Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery", " negotiated the release of prisoners", was involved (in some unidentified way) with the film (Daughter from Danang), and "helped train [again, in some unidentified way] the first group of Peace Corps Volunteers", I would expect there to be some significant coverage of him that I'm simply not able to find. If such sources surface, I would not object to the article being recreated with appropriate specificity and sourcing. TJRC (talk) 21:28, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:49, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not mentioned or credited in the article on the award winning documentary. Lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent stories. Candleabracadabra (talk) 14:17, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 OnTime. There is consensus that the article is not notable as a standalone, and the info should be merged with the into in OnTime. All useful info is in fact already in the OnTime article, and there is nothing to merge, so I just redirected it. If OnTime at some point gets moved to Axosoft, care should be taken with the history merging.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:02, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Axosoft

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

Non-notable company. This company makes OnTime software which has its own wikipedia page. There was some relevant information about the OnTime software and I moved it to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OnTime#Features. But the company itself, as distinct from the software, is non-notable. U2fanboi (talk) 07:49, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge? The software in question has been renamed to Axosoft. Would it be more appropriate to merge the two articles into one, Axosoft? Chilblane (talk) 16:55, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge If its been renamed then merge seems the way forward Amortias (T)(C) 20:48, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:48, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:48, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:48, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:ORG clearly states that companies must be notable enough to be cited by third parties, and not just inherit notability from something associated with it. --Mr. Guye (talk) 00:05, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 Leviathan Wakes#Sequels. (or wherever). There's probably no issue with draft/user-spacing, either, but I just rounded as it seems there's rough consensus against keeping. Once it's released, it seems there's no current argument against undoing the redirect and/or moving out of draft/user-space. slakr^\ talk / 06:44, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cibola Burn

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

Article about a non-notable, unpublished book. The only possibly reliable source that I could find [28] barely mentions the book. Fails WP:NBOOK. - Mr X 16:21, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bladeborn (talk) 18:06, 30 April 2014 (UTC) There are numerous Publisher related articles about this forthcoming release, so I'm not sure I understand the statement by Mr X that there is nothing out there about this book. Articles include [29], [30], [31], and [32]. The page does not refer to these articles because they are not academic and are not directly referenced against the publisher's website, Orbit. In addition, this book is available for pre-order at Amazon, Fishpond (NZ), Waterstones, Bookdepository, Booksamillion, and many others around the world. Certainly I think this presence does tend to question the speculation offered above that the "the only reliable source" is the original release reference on the page from Cinema Blend. This book hits the stands in about 8 weeks - so why would we be aggressive about deleting its initial Wikipedia entry at this time? Certainly I think I could understand it if the book had failed to arrive as-advertised and had been MIA for months or years past it's published release date. But that's not the case.[reply]

Please read WP:BKCRIT which explains the notability criteria for books. Most of the sources that you provided are closely connected, for example, the book sellers. They merely establish that the book exists. The Goodreads blurb was written by the author. The nikihawkes.com blog seems to be a personal blog. The SF Signal article merely mentions the book. The Publishers Weekly article doesn't list an author, which suggests that it may be press release generated or an advertorial (I'm not sure, but I'm suspicious). What are needed are independent sources that have nothing to gain, and that have editorial oversight. See WP:RS. I'm open to have my mind changed if anyone can demonstrate that any of the five notability criteria have been met. @Bladeborn: your signature should be placed at the end of your post.- Mr X 18:57, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative keep, based on the starred Publishers Weekly review for this book [33] and the fact that it's part of a series that seems to have gotten consistent coverage in reliable sources. Bladeborn, please note that the book's availability at Amazon and other vendors does not make an argument for notability, and please have a look at Wikipedia:Notability (books) for more explanation of the sorts of information that would be relevant here. --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:02, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have already read the referenced WP:BKCRIT, however, all the books in this series have similar coverage and began with similar early references/pages, and they were not precipitously deleted a few weeks before the publication date. This book is highly anticipated and widely publicized, even if the publicizing locations are promulgating the publisher's supplied content. In publishing terms, the ability to pre-order a media item is, in fact, significant. Only once a media item is finished and is ready for shipment does it move to pre-order - most pre-order items are ready in-warehouse for shipment about a month or more before what the media industry calls the Street Date (release date). That means this book is already in boxes ready to ship even as I type. That is, unlike a simple 'coming soon' entry, which speculates that the item might be finished by the writer(s) sometime soon, and it could end-up never coming out, as has happened with several George R.R. Martin publication announcements and Melanie Rawn publication of "The Captal's Tower". The Captal's Tower has has a Wiki page that is not flagged for deletion despite being a 'coming soon' for about fifteen years and having no possible publication date, because Melanie hasn't written it - which on the arguements placed here, seems to put it squarely in the territory of "Not notable". With that in mind, I suppose my observation would be that perhaps most of the SciFi/Fabtasy books with Wiki-page entries would therefore similarly be considered 'not notable' and thousands more should be flagged for deletion, but I'm noting that they aren't. I suppose my position is that this series has already received substantial coverage, is well received, and the latest book (Cibola Burn) is highly anticipated by readers, and the authors are also well liked popular authors whose bibliographies will be incomplete if this page is deleted; ergo, I propose that this book's is 'notable' and its impending release, well attested by it's pre-order status (as previously explained), patently place it equal to, or higher, on the WP:BKCRIT scale than many other works which are already present on Wikipedia and not under threat of deletion. Personally speaking, I don't have a dog in this fight. I wrote the page to keep Wikipedia up-to-date with the current state of this well liked series, because the book is about to ship, and because people will look for it on Wikipedia - I know I did. I have no objection to Wikipedia being out-of-date and incomplete in this particular matter if that's what's really wanted, but it does seem a little pedantic to me given the context of the book, its predecessors in the series, and the authors involved. Bladeborn (talk) 20:29, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One thing that hasn't been acknowledged by anyone anxious to delete this book, is the fact that Daniel J. Abraham (the principle author behind the "James S.A. Corey" pen-name) is a significant SciFi author and nominee for both the Hugo and Nebula awards, and that the Expanse series has been picked-up for TV adaptation by the screenwriters for Iron Man[34]. If you'd like, I can add this to the page, but I thought the identity of the author was well enough established to not require verbose repetition. I'm having difficulty convincing myself to see this latest part of the series as being in any way less 'notable' than all the others in the series, or than many of its contemporaries. Bladeborn (talk) 20:56, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The notability of the book in this article has to stand on its own and perhaps it will in the future. It can't inherit notability from other books in the series or the author's notability unless the author's body of work has been a common subject of scholarly study (example: Mark Twain). One option that you may wish to consider is to USERFY the article until the book's notability can stand on its own. Also, readers don't really loose anything if the mention of the book is included in the author article or an article listing his works.- Mr X 21:29, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with the application of the standard in this interpretation. I cite the WP:BKCRIT, which explicitly states "typically because the anticipation of the book is notable in its own right. In such cases there should still be multiple independent sources providing strong evidence that the book will be published, which sources include the title of the book and an approximate date of publication." This book is so widely blogged-about in the SciFi community that it is patently highly "anticipated", making it 'notable' in its own right. In addition to which both the publisher's own announcement of the book as well as the multiple alternate locations provide such "strong evidence that the book will be published", the announcement of this book in September being used also as the vehicle for announcing the entire series is to be adapted for a TV Pilot, along with the author being a Hugo and Nebula Award nominee, all seem adequate to meet the requirements set forth in WP:BKCRIT. I think this author is being targeted with a speciously pedantic application of WP:BKCRIT that does not hold-up given who he is, this series' prominence in the SciFi community, and most especially when compare to the other extant and long-standing content at Wikipedia. Let's examine a case study on the application of these 'rules': [35]: I use this example reluctantly because I have first-hand experience with it. This page has been in existence for 8 years without a single tagging for deletion despite the book never even having been started in 1998 when it was first 'announced' as forthcoming. That's 16 years ago, so when this page was added to Wikipedia in 2008, the book has already been non-existent for 10 years. The Wiki-page has been updated many times. Yet the author herself told me in an email exchange some ten or more years ago that she has no idea what the story line of book was going to be. Captal's Tower will NEVER be written, it has no contract with a publisher, and it has no target date. Yet it has remained an unchallenged Wiki article despite it's non-existence, in total defiance of the apparently unwavering demand to adhere to a very narrow application of WP:BKCRIT for 8 years. I'm kind of not finding the interpretive application of WP:BKCRIT and the argument for deleting Mr Abraham's new book page, a real book that is widely anticipated and about to be a TV Series, credible as an argument. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bladeborn (talk • contribs) 23:14, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, much of the coverage seems to be in blogs. Blogs are almost never usable as a reliable source because anyone can write one and the vast majority undergo no editorial process, making them self-published and unverifiable sources. This is generally why places such as Goodreads aren't usable as a reliable source in any context, as anyone can post a review or comment and as far as general editing goes, it's not that hard to achieve "librarian" status and edit the book. Not to mention that just being on that site doesn't give notability, as almost anyone can add a book to the website and it's kind of considered (at best) a database-esque place ala IMDb. As far as the existence of other articles go, the existence of other articles (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS) does not mean that any given article should be kept. All it could mean is that the article has not yet been merged or deleted entirely. In most cases the article referenced generally fails notability guidelines and in almost every instance the page is actually deleted, which is generally the opposite of what the editor is trying to achieve by mentioning it. I've actually redirected the article you've pointed out, as it did fail WP:NBOOK and never should have had a separate article in the first place. As far as saying that this AfD could be part of an agenda against the author, please assume WP:GOODFAITH. It's very, very rare that an AfD nomination is actually a concentrated effort against a specific person and even hinting at a potential bias without giving some very, VERY solid evidence to back up your concerns will not endear you to incoming editors that could help search for sources. If anything, it makes people more defensive. Now as far as Abraham's notability, please understand that notability is WP:NOTINHERITED and you must show individual notability for each specific book by way of individual reviews and coverage for the book specifically. That the series as a whole is possibly getting developed into a TV show helps, but that doesn't really show individual notability for this specific book per se, as it's for the series as a whole and this book is only briefly mentioned. WP:TRIVIAL mentions don't really show notability for a book unless it's talking about something so overwhelmingly notable that it'd keep on that basis alone, and that's usually reserved for when a book wins an overwhelmingly notable award such as a Hugo Award. I'll try to search myself, but so far this just seems too soon for an entry. I think that right now it'd just be better to userfy this and/or redirect it to the main page with history so that when it does release, it can gain more coverage. It might gain more coverage when it releases and big ticket books usually do, but it's never a solid guarantee because a lot can happen inbetween now and the book's actual release. The book could be postponed. A bigger ticket book in the same genre could be released and attention for Cibola Burn could fall to the wayside in favor of publishing about the bigger book (which happens all too frequently). Or someone who was promising coverage in a RS could end up just not actually following through, which is also a frequent occurrence. That happens a lot with authors such as Laurell K Hamilton, where places will promise coverage or it'll seem likely that it'll get coverage, but it doesn't actually come about. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:55, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One last note to my TL;DNR block of text: a book's popularity (pre or post release) does not automatically give notability either. See WP:ITSPOPULAR for more explanation. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:57, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect back to Leviathan Wakes#Sequels. WP:TOOSOON.--Auric talk 11:08, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to James S. A. Corey or The Expanse (series)/userfy. The coverage just isn't here yet and to be honest, you won't be able to keep an article based solely on a trade review, which is really all we have. Is it frustrating, given that it's likely to gain coverage? Yup. I've had dozens of articles on unreleased books/movies I'd love to have in the mainspace, but the coverage just wasn't there. I've got at least four articles currently in the userspace waiting for that additional coverage to appear, so I'd be just as happy as the next person if the guidelines weren't as strict. However they are strict by necessity and while it does keep some "obviously notable" things from coming to the mainspace, it also keeps a lot of "obviously not notable" stuff from the mainspace as well. If there was a bit more coverage we could bend the rules slightly, but the coverage just isn't there yet. Redirecting it will lose nothing, as the history will still be there and we can always unredirect it when the coverage comes about - something I've done often. It's just that we can't guarantee the coverage, as that falls into WP:CRYSTALBALL territory and a LOT can happen between now and a book's release that prevents coverage or even the book's release entirely. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:12, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:47, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Leviathan Wakes#Sequels for now. Candleabracadabra (talk) 14:21, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Draft:namespace until the thing is released. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:40, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 Hole (band). (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 03:35, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jill Emery

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

Fails notability both as an artist and as a musician Staszek Lem (talk) 18:09, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Arguably passes WP:MUSICBIO #6 as a member of both Hole and Mazzy Star. But so far not finding any RS coverage about her. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:40, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply: Notability is not inherited. Even being a non-fan, I can list tens of random musicians which popped up here or there without real influence. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:28, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - That is not what "Notability is not inherited" means, exactly. WP:BAND specifically states that if a musician is a member of two or more bands that are themselves notable, that can be taken as conferring notability. We'd still need reliable sources though. So far, I'm not seeing much beyond occasional mentions that confirm that she was the bassist of Hole but little beyond that. — Gwalla | Talk 03:17, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment on musicbio#6. As stated in tha allmusic bio, mazzy star is Roback and Sandoval "with backing musicians" so I'd suggest Emery doesn't count as a "reasonably-prominent member" of Mazzy Star. duffbeerforme (talk) 02:57, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well . . . I thought I had run across something (in a non-RS source) that implied she had more of substantial role in that band for a while, but I can't find it now and anyway no one has come up with any substantive RS material, so I'm inclined to agree with you on that point. --Arxiloxos (talk) 03:15, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:40, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hole (band) per lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Relevant bits can be noted there. Candleabracadabra (talk) 14:23, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. This subject would warrant an article if it was fully sourced, due to involvement in a few notable acts. A reference to liner notes, is barely enough to avoid WP:BLPPROD, but not enough for a stand-alone article. --Rob (talk) 00:11, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 Smuggler (production company). slakr^\ talk / 06:53, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Milling Smith

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

Desired outcome: Forced-redirect to Smuggler (production company) with the edit history left intact for possible later use in the Smuggler article or other related articles. Reason: There is little or no notability outside of his work with that company. The opening section is pretty much all about Smuggler and its work. Even the one film with an article mentioned outside of the first section, Greetings from Tim Buckley, is a Smuggler production. The page has been redirected to Smuggler (production company) but reverted. Note: I made some recent edits to remove some but not all of the overt promotional-ism in this article. If this AFD fails then further cleanup will be required. The page about the other co-founder, Brian Carmody, was redirected to the Smuggler page the day after it was created and that edit has not been reverted (yet). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:02, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This AFD has been advertised at Talk:Smuggler (production company). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:06, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect No notability outside of his involvement with a production company. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:44, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:05, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:05, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:05, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:33, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Protected redirect as per Davidwr. The substantial coverage is about the company. Candleabracadabra (talk) 14:27, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. slakr^\ talk / 07:01, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First Presbyterian Church (Perryville, Missouri)

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

Contested PROD. The article creator promised to expand the article, but nothing has happened. In any case, a web search produces nothing about this church that suggests notability. St Anselm (talk) 21:13, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Link one goes to a main website, no coverage of the place. Link two just shows the church's address, nothing on how it's notable. Link three Safari seems to have a problem with. Even if you doubt link three you've got that it fails one and two thus it fails having two reliable sources. MM (I did the who in the whatnow?) ^{(I did this! Me!)} 22:42, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand the urgency at deleting this article, and after working all day long I must say it is disheartening to come home and see this notice in my box. I was notified that I only had 2 days to get the information for this article before deletion. Two days are by far not sufficient time, especially considering that most of my day is spent at work. I explained that I started the article - as is - so that the people I am trying to contact could possibly contribute themselves, and maybe even become inspired to contribute to other Wikipedia articles. However, these people I am trying to get information from in Perryville, Missouri are not the world's fastest people and do not work at lightening speed. It would be counterproductive and rude for me to snap my fingers at them in getting me the information that I require just because someone so urgently wants this article deleted. Furthermore, I live in San Francisco, California, and am trying to get information about this church in Perryville, Missouri, which is 2,118 miles (3,408km) away. The exact reason that I need time to get this information is because the sources that I am seeking (from the Perry County Historical Society) are not published online. This urgency to delete this article feels a bit unreasonable and rather discouraging. I do not understand the issue with the external link on the article: http://perryvillepresbyterian.org/ It seems to work fine. (2014-04-30, 8:10pm US-Pacific Time) Markkaempfer (talk) 03:05, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Remember, the general notability guideline requires significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Even if the Perry County Historical Society source is deemed to be independent enough and provides significant coverage (and of course, I wouldn't know, since I haven't seen it) - we would still need another source. Wikipedia:Userfication is perhaps the best option in this case, while the research is carried out. But AfDs last for seven days, so you still have a bit more time. St Anselm (talk) 03:54, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would like to know the grounds on which article creator believes this church to be notable: there is no assertion of notability in the article, and if I had come across this while patrolling new pages I would not have hesitated to CsD it: from experience, this would likely have been accepted.TheLongTone (talk) 13:56, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If notability is the case (assuming by that you mean being significant, well-known or even famous), then the vast majority of the thousands upon thousands of articles on tiny hamlets, villages and buildings found across the United States should also be deleted. By doing that, you turn Wikipedia into just another limited paper encyclopedia like "Encyclopedia Britannica" that only mentions very significant places of interest. Markkaempfer (talk) 07:46, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand things Wikipedia functions as a gazetteer, so places are judged worthy of inclusion if the meet certain criteria, such as appearing on census returns. Buildings are a different kettle of fish. Notability needs to be established. For instance by being on the register of historic buildings. Imo this content (& that of some other articles you've created} would be better included in the articles on the places.TheLongTone (talk) 16:45, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment From my understanding, Wikipedia is well beyond a mere gazetteer, and encompasses a much broader selection of articles than any other encyclopedia in existence, exactly because it does not function as the gazetteers or encyclopedias of the past. Markkaempfer (talk) 01:14, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misunderstand: wikipedia is, among other things, a gazetteer, hence the inclusion of places. However there is no need for an article on everything: there has to be a line. Hence wikipedia notabilty guidelines.TheLongTone (talk) 13:39, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I get that point, although I find it to be dispensed quite arbitrarily, considering with this definition of notability there seems to be an article on just about every other mundane third or regional league footballer (e.g. Yannic Thiel), unnotable former train stations (e.g. Isabella (CTA station)), unhistorical former hospitals (e.g. Fort Howard Veterans Hospital or Frederick Memorial Hospital), ordinary high school sports stadiums or fields (e.g. Nelson Field or Tom Kimbrough Stadium), run-of-the-mill roller coasters (e.g. Schussboomer or Diavlo), ordinary condos (e.g. 1500 Sheridan Road), etc. that we surely wouldn't find listed in traditional encyclopedias like Encyclopedia Brittanica or Encyclopedia Americana. I had assumed they were there because of Erik Möller's "Our job is to provide the sum of all knowledge". I can only assume the real reason must then be that no one got around to deleting them or there was no consensus on what should be deleted. Markkaempfer (talk) 00:14, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:32, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If this article is to be deleted because it is not 'notable' enough, then I think we really need to take a look at the many other Wikipedia articles on various buildings (train stations, bars, diners, restaurants, condos, night clubs, roller coasters, hospitals, retirement homes, sports fields, etc.) that have nothing 'notable' about them either, as to avoid this whole process from seeming arbitrary. I keep finding more and more to which I would seriously put forth the question of 'notability'. Markkaempfer (talk) 06:28, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (with some regret) -- The consensus is that most local churches are NN. Someone seems to have been very asiduous in creating articles on a lot of churches in Perry County. I could probbaly create articles on many of the churches in my local town, but I would expect most of them to be deleted. Some are probably locally notable, in which case the appropriate course is to add a section to the article on the place where they are. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:04, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I respect the discussion here, but I feel I have to question this 'consensus' because it doesn't seem to be applied evenly, but rather at random. Why should my article get singled out when other seemingly unnotable articles don't? What is the consensus on unnotable stations Isabella (CTA station), pubs 1321 Downtown Taproom Bistro, bars Hogs and Heifers, diners Cherry Hut, condos Park Place (Atlanta), residential units Hunter's Key (Tampa), Florida, night clubs Abbey Lounge, roller coasters Diavlo, hospitals Frederick Memorial Hospital, sports fields Nelson Field, and so on? Markkaempfer (talk) 08:43, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I entirely see your point. There are many articles on wikipedia about very unremarkable things, which people will defend with remarkable passion. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fort Howard Veterans Hospital. However this is an argument for deletinng those articles, not keeping this one.TheLongTone (talk) 12:11, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment.....yes, I saw Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fort Howard Veterans Hospital has been selected for deletion. Somebody put that article on the list for deletion only after I pointed it out, yet many of the other articles I pointed out are not notable and clearly have never been questioned despite being viewed by users. The point of my argument isn't defined to merely this article, but the whimsical application of rules, which I am trying to point out. I'm very clearly questioning the method for determining if an article should be deleted because it very much appears to be an arbitrary process and leaves me feeling singled out. Again, I question why my article should be held accountable to the notion of notability when many other articles which don't fit the criteria of being notable (including articles by other users here) are not questioned. Maybe the problem is that I wrote an article on an 'unnotable' church when I clearly should have created an article on something cool, yet unnotable, such as average and run of the mill night clubs or biker bars? Markkaempfer (talk) 08:40, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. The nomination does not present a valid rationale for deletion in that it recommends merging or redirection, rather than deletion. (Non-administrator closure.) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:32, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hardy Boys:Burned

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

Seems to be a more recent Hardy Boys story with no refs or links to it--I think a merge or a redirect be the best. (I didn't even know there were any newer Hardy boys books even until now) I put a merge tag yesterday on here. Wgolf (talk) 21:27, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:15, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. slakr^\ talk / 07:01, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zentrack

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

Fails notability. The article has no references and according to the product's homepage it is an open-source project not being worked on anymore. U2fanboi (talk) 06:56, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:46, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up no significant RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 15:04, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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, but not very enthusiastically. This actually falls into the broad grey area between "no consensus" and "keep". Candleabracadabra's sources and revisions to the article are undoubtedly an improvement, and I think they may have attracted just about enough support to nudge this over the line into a "keep" outcome. Since this wasn't exactly an enthusiastic keep, if editors wish, it will be in order to have a discussion about whether it would be better to redirect or merge this content; that conversation should happen on the talk page.—S Marshall T/C 11:16, 16 May 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Simon Dodd

AfDs for this article:

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

Delete as lacking notability. I found no independent, reliable, secondary coverage of Simon Dodd, Australian writer. He does have an entry at IMDB. I found things that he had written. He fails the general notability guideline. As to the WP:AUTHOR, he did play a role in the production of the TV series Good News Week (an Australian satirical panel game show) and The Glass House (an Australian comedy talk show); however, there is no indication in sources that his role was significant. This Wikipedia article was written in June 2008 by single-purpose account Simondo59, who is also the main contributor. There was no disclosure of any conflict of interest. The previous Afd in April 2010 under this name, was unrelated to this article, dealt with American Simon J. Dodd, aka User:Simon Dodd, was procedurally flawed and was speedily closed. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simon Dodd. --Bejnar (talk) 06:27, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an interview with Simon Dodd: Low, Lenny Ann (27 April 2014). "The art of writing good jokes for the Logies' host". The Sydney Morning Herald. --Bejnar (talk) 06:52, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:34, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:35, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:35, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:35, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Won 5 Awgie Awards (Australia standard of "Writers Guild Award") ..--Stemoc (talk) 13:43, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found quite a bit of coverage in reliable independent sources and added some citations and content to the article. Candleabracadabra (talk) 14:45, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Plaything did get some press (some really just listings)[36][37][38][39] The SMH article is good coverage as well.

On the other hand, his book's print-on-demand and short of reviews; and articles by Dodd don't establish his notability. Also his Awgies were mainly as part of an ensemble.[40] Nearly notable, but I'd like to see just a bit more. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:09, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Between the Awgies and the added sources, I'm happy. Doctorhawkes (talk) 09:11, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews and not awarded to him specifically or primarily. --Bejnar (talk) 03:22, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete as speedy A7 and protected from being recreated - Peripitus (Talk) 12:12, 8 May 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Azhar Sabri

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

Only sources given are press releases. Does not meet WP:GNG, although I'm not tagging for A7 because there does seem to be a claim to notability, albeit a weak one. Note that the article was tagged for A7 while I was nominating it, so should the article be speedily deleted, please close this AfD. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 05:50, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. There is no independent coverage of the subject. Also no basis for notability is stated. Even though this article was written today (8 May), I can find no basis to think that it can be improved to meet guidelines. --Bejnar (talk) 07:24, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per nom. Subject would qualify under CSD:A7 (biography) ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 09:01, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Brian Vala Nahed

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

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

The result was delete. slakr^\ talk / 07:03, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My Kind of Christmas Tour

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

Fails WP:NCONCERT. — Status (talk · contribs) 04:30, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of reliable third-party coverage. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 04:35, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:29, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:29, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:29, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 David Archuleta discography. slakr^\ talk / 07:06, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Other Side of Down Asian Tour

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

Fails WP:NCONCERT. — Status (talk · contribs) 04:29, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of coverage from reliable third-party sources. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 04:52, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:27, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:28, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:28, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:28, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:28, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:28, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to a relevant article, such as David Archuleta discography. Not enough coverage in reliable sources, but in this case, a merge would be a better idea since there's probably some content that can still be included in an article. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:33, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I change my vote to merge with David Archuleta discography. Naruto has a good idea. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 05:17, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What do tours have to do with a discography? — Status (talk · contribs) 07:28, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discography articles can have a section dedicated to the concerts an artist had. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:49, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. slakr^\ talk / 07:08, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Christmas from the Heart Tour

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

Fails WP:NCONCERT. — Status (talk · contribs) 04:29, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of coverage from reliable third-party sources. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 04:53, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:26, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:26, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:26, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 David Archuleta discography. slakr^\ talk / 07:09, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

David Archuleta Live In Concert

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

Fails WP:NCONCERT. — Status (talk · contribs) 04:29, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of coverage from reliable third-party sources. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 04:54, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:24, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:25, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:25, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:25, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to a relevant article, such as David Archuleta discography. Not enough coverage in reliable sources, but in this case, a merge would be a better idea since there's probably some content that can still be included in an article. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:34, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to figure out a good target to redirect this page to, but David Archuleta's main page didn't quite seem to cut it. Good idea, Naruto, I'm changing to merge with that. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 05:15, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What do tours have to do with a discography? — Status (talk · contribs) 07:28, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discography articles can have a section dedicated to the concerts an artist had. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:50, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. slakr^\ talk / 07:12, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don Schechter

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

I came across this via the AfD for one of his films. After looking at his article and searching for sources, I can't really see where he passes our notability guidelines at all. I can't find where he, his company, or his work as a whole has received any coverage in places Wikipedia would consider to be a reliable source. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:38, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 04:03, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I thought about nominating this article for deletion, but I settled for stubbing and tagging it. It probably should be deleted, though. It was a clear resume before I stubbed it, and there's no coverage in reliable sources that I can see. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:03, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG due to lack of coverage from reliable third-party sources. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 04:58, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:21, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:21, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - Fails GNG. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 13:38, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been significantly changed since the initial resume style page that was created awhile back. It has been rewritten with references to media outlets. Specifically national media coverage for Transcendent Man, A Good Whack, as well as "on air" personality for About.com", and the Ig Nobel awards. §Wikisneelix §Wikisneelix — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikisneelix (talk • contribs) 14:29, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Off hand, I can tell you that About.com is not considered a reliable source. Also, I count three references to Wikipedia pages and at least four IMDb references. These are also not considered reliable sources at all. iTunes is also essentially a primary source. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 15:08, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well... About.com can be used as a reliable source in very, very specific circumstances. The coverage would have to be by someone who is a staff member for the site, as opposed to one of the thousands upon thousands of people who blog on it regularly. However the key here is that the coverage would have to be about Schechter, as opposed to him being one of the people who write for the site- whether as a staff member or as a blogger. Simply working for someone doesn't give notability in the majority of situations unless the job is considered to be notable in and of itself, such as being President of the USA. As far as the film mentions go, the problem is that I don't really see where Schechter himself is really mentioned. Being a staff member on a film doesn't always mean that you'll gain notability for said film, because ultimately to show notability you'd have to show where he's getting at least some mention in the article. The reason behind this is because there are hundreds of people who work on a film and I could serve as best boy on Avatar, but that doesn't mean that I will automatically gain notability because I was associated with a notable movie. As far as the Tonya Harding film, I don't see where the documentary is really mentioned in the source given. If they aren't mentioning the film and/or its director/creator, then odds are it was a 1-2 second clip that was shown without any sort of mention of the documentary or its maker. That's considered to be a WP:TRIVIAL mention and those can't give notability regardless of where it is or how many trivial mentions are given. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 02:23, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please be aware that most college awards aren't seen as notable enough to keep an article on that basis alone. I'll also be honest and say that adding a ton of sources doesn't automatically give notability, because we will still have to check to see if the sources are usable to show notability in the first place. If they're WP:PRIMARY, WP:TRIVIAL, don't mention Schechter, or are in places that we can't use as a reliable source, loading the article down with links to various places won't make him seem more notable- if anything, in most cases it works against the article rather than for it. I'll weed through them later and see if there is anything usable. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 02:29, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As much as I understand how staff members of a site would have more credibility than normal users, WP:RSN has declared About.com unreliable..... multiple times..... XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 02:30, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've heard that we can use their reviews of films, which is really the only time I use them in general. I'll ask at RSN and see if those would be usable. (Not that this director has any via them, but for future knowledge.) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:17, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per WP:BARE - there is at least a few sources that could be used. If this is kept, I have proposed merging the articles on his films into the main BLP; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ascendants. Bearian (talk) 16:25, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. slakr^\ talk / 07:14, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Venetian (band)

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

A non-notable band that depends on references to blogs and social media. Fails WP:NBAND. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:11, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A band that with no big label behind was able to reach millions of views on youtube and getting coverage in newspapers and online magazines (On May 27th, 2011 the band had an interview in the Long Beach Press Telegram). Win WP:NBAND. imnotsureiknow (talk) 01:23, 8 May 2014 (EST)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:19, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:19, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:19, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This band has been interviewed by The Examiner in December 2013, as well as played on New Driven Radio. Win WP:NBAND. davepaint86 (talk) 04:30, 8 May 2014 (PT)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:19, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:19, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:19, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Sorry, guys, but The Examiner is not a reliable source. It's blacklisted. You can't even add it to a Wikipedia article. And one local newspaper isn't going to establish notability. You're going to have to show better than blogs and a local newspaper. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:45, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. How about the fact that when he was a session player he recorded with artists such as Morgan Ågren, Marco Minnemann (http://rejectionaryart.bandcamp.com/releases) among others and the fact that some of his videos reached so many people on YouTube? I could understand The Examiner but YouTube is pretty legit. imnotsureiknow (talk) 10:20, 9 May 2014 (EST)
Delete - I'm unable to find sufficient coverage in independent reliable sources for this act; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSIC at this time. Gongshow talk 03:15, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. No charting, rotation, gold. nothing satisfying WP:BAND. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:08, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This band has been interviewed just few days ago by Telemundo and US Al Jazeera. Also two of his videos were featured on NME.com last year. WP:NBAND. davepaint86 (talk) 07:00, 16 May 2014 (PT)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 Hudsonville, Michigan. The delete arguments are convincing, but creating a redirect because they're cheap and it is a plausible search term. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:43, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hudsonville Christian School

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

Non-notable primary school fails WP:SCHOOL Drdisque (talk) 02:52, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Primary school of no historical or architectural significance. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:07, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:18, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:18, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect- To Hudsonville, Michigan per WP:SchoolOutcomes since it doesn't seem to belong to Hudsonville Public School District (not yet created). Discrete search term. Should have been tried before bringing to AfD. Dru of Id (talk) 15:14, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going with a weak keep. There is some coverage as here. It also has some history and the former school building looks to be somewhat significant architecturally. IN this book it's ranked second for the largest private schools in Western Michigan. It's not a strong case, but I think it's worth including and makes the encyclopedia better to maintain an article on this school. We have much less for many high schools.. for what that's worth.Candleabracadabra (talk) 15:48, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The first link is to routine local web news coverage of the appointment of a new principal to replace the retired principal. The second is a simple entry on a list of schools in a region of a state ranked by size. I do not think that either rises to the level of significant coverage that I would expect to overcome our general consensus that primary schools are not notable, unless of exceptional historical or architectural significance. I will concede that the school is a bit larger and a bit older than most, but in my view, that is not enough. I would be happy with "redirect" as the outcome. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:02, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm naturally a little more lenient to keep schools though this is not a high school. Per M Live citation show it has received RS coverage. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 21:57, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not seeing the level of coverage or other indicia of notability that would lead us to retain a stand-alone article for a less than high-school-level school. Epeefleche (talk) 17:52, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without redirect - One local article about its principal does not significant or sufficient coverage make. I'm not having any more luck than anyone else beyond finding evidence that it exists. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 14:56, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:11, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Niko Gotsiridze

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

Russian theater artist that I've tried to find any info on-but nothing. Can't find any info at all. Wgolf (talk) 03:36, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:43, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:44, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 14:50, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable and not properly documented.--DThomsen8 (talk) 02:54, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I like how people don't know anything and say things like "lack of coverage", "not notable". How would you know if he were? You can't write his name in Russian or Georgian, so you can't check... He is notable and there's enough coverage: in Russian, in Georgian. --Moscow Connection (talk) 21:16, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Moscow Connection (talk) 21:27, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → Call me Hahc21 02:52, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For those who don't know Cyrillic, I think his name is Нико Готсириж/Нико Готсириѕ/Нико Готсириџ? I'm not sure about the last character. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 03:14, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is notable with several mentions in substantial books. Being a "people's artist" is a high rank. By the way, the cyrillic form is usually Нико Гоциридзе. The article does require someone fluent in Russian and/or Georgian to appropriately develop it and footnote it. --Bejnar (talk) 08:00, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article now has three citations, and more than three times the text. --08:37, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Keep per insights offered by Ruskie editors. Candleabracadabra (talk) 15:35, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-Thanks to the people who helped update this page-AFD's don't always hurt the article, they can help get people in as well to keep the article. I am not sure if I should withdraw or not though given the fact I'm pretty sure this will be closed soon. Wgolf (talk) 17:28, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Candleabracadabra, that Russkies have spoken. To Wgolf: It is helpful to all that you as nominator have indicated a willingness to withdraw the nomination, but given that someone else has voted Delete, the rule or practice is that you cannot simply Close the AFD yourself. Thanks. --do ncr am 23:04, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. A merge discussion might be appropriate on the article talk page. v/r - T P 19:09, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cirrus (song)

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

Doesn't appear to be notable. The majority of sources here come nowhere near RS, by the looks of it, and what we have is little more than short reviews. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:07, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete From the page: "the song did not chart but in 2014 the song was featured in a Vodafone advert." It doesn't seem worth keeping a page about a song that isn't notable for anything. Szsmr (talk) 02:48, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:42, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:42, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:MUSICBIO#C1.--Laun chba ller 06:14, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MUSICBIO#C1 is for musicians and ensembles. As this is a song article, the relevant guideline would be WP:NSONG. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:35, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thank you. I believe it also meets WP:GNG.--Laun chba ller 18:47, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see that this song is notable per the WP:NSONG guideline, and the article is more about the music video than it is about the song itself. Sourcing issues per Crisco 1492. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:35, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- To clarify, I don't believe it meets WP:GNG either. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:42, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Though it needs work, the song is the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works per WP:NSONG. Of the three sources Crisco questioned on the DYK nom, I was able to find the first two hosted by a mainstream magazine (reliable per WP:NEWSBLOG, perhaps?) See if you could squeeze more criticism of the song as you can from the reviews cited; here is another source from Fact magazine, from before the music video was released. Whisternefet (t · c) 23:21, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge into The North Borders - has not been ranked on any significant chart or won any reward. Most sources are short reviews, many for the album, not the song itself. Does not meet WP:NSONG. -Zanhe (talk) 22:53, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The number of references seem to help it barely meet WP:GNG even though they're short, the sheer number shows some interest in the subject. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:36, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → Call me Hahc21 02:51, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

merge and redirect to The North Borders. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:39, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It seems to satisfy GNG. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 04:18, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by User:Jimfbleak per CSD G12, CSD G11: "Multiple reasons: speedy deletion criteria G12, G11. Source URL: http://dennisevano.weebly.com/books-in-print.html". (Non-administrator closure.) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:40, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Spirit Messenger (novel)

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

Book that fails to meet WP:NBOOK. Article apparently written by the book's author, User:Dennisevano. Mikeblas (talk) 02:22, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Other than this one review, I can't really find where this book has received coverage enough to merit an article. This could probably be speedied as a promotional article, because the tone is pretty blatantly puffy. As far as the screenplay goes, from what little I can find out there about this book at all, it looks like the author himself was writing the screenplay with the intention of trying to get someone to make it. It's kind of a common gimmick with writers in general, that they'll say "screenplay in progress" to make it more appealing to any publishers wanting to buy it, to give the impression that there's an active interest in adapting it. For example, the author's page says that people are attached, but there's no mention of this on IMDb, which gives me the impression that if there was any interest, it's long since waned. In any case, a speedy end would probably be best here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:16, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I figured that this was copyvio, and it looks like it was a cut/paste from this page. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:22, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. slakr^\ talk / 07:16, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bonnie Banfield

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

This is an actress who had a brief career in the 1970s. The IMDb lists her as having had three roles, and the article's references are nothing but trivial mentions. A Google search reveals less than 200 hits, and most of them are torrent sites and social media. Unfortunately, there really just isn't much to say about this actress, and an article at this time is unsupported by WP:NACTOR. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:06, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Made the cover of Jet magazine once, and that's about it. Doesn't satisfy NACTOR. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:34, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. slakr^\ talk / 07:17, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vintage Sound Machine

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

Non-notable local band that has no coverage in reliable sources. It was tagged for speedy deletion shortly after creation (about six months ago), but the creator removed the speedy delete tag. Rather than try for another speedy delete, I've decided to nominate for deletion. Fails WP:BAND and only get around 50 Google hits. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:39, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:16, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:16, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete NOTMYSPACE Andy Dingley (talk) 13:47, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I cannot find any evidence that these guys meet the criteria for inclusion set out at WP:BAND or the general notability guide. — sparklism ^hey! 07:28, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no coverage found in reliable sources for this group; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:BAND at this time. Gongshow talk 03:17, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. slakr^\ talk / 07:19, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dirty Wings

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

The same with

Nonnotable albums by a nonnotable artist (currently under AfD). Nice try to use wikipedia for promotion. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:04, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:11, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:58, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - the artist's article has been deleted and there's no suggestion any of his work is notable either. Stalwart111 04:41, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All as non-notable records by a non-notable artist. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:42, 18 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:17, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Debarghya Das

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

This person meets the deletion requirements of Subjects notable only for one event. All citations are for the same event, the person has yet to demonstrate a likelihood of becoming notable in the future, and the event is not significant. Murkymurks (talk) 14:36, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:55, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:14, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The subject is only covered in sources in the context of one event, so the article qualifies for deletion per WP:BLP1E. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:42, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. slakr^\ talk / 07:26, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Surjan charit

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

I had this as a deletion-but upon searching for any info-all I could find was a link to a list of books, nothing for the author either. All I can figure out that its a non fictional book with mythology. Wgolf (talk) 00:56, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:49, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete neither the book nor the author seem to have anything written about them. There is no claim of notability in the article (stub). It's a pity that the original author of the article has not edited since April, as it would be nice to know the full name of the author and around when the original was published. The book does not seem to be held in many libraries. This bibliographic record shows the author as: Chandra Shekhar and the title as: Surjan Charit mahakavyam with commentary and translation into English by Chander Dhar Sarma Sastriyana. There was a Chandra Shekhar, 1927-2007, who wrote about politics and social change, but it does not look like the same Chandra Shekhar. The title seems to also appear as Surjan Charit Mahakavya and it is mentioned as a non-Persian source for medieval Indian history. --Bejnar (talk) 09:18, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete, I wasn't able to find anything but the usual routine listings for this book. "Weak" because there may be sources in Indian languages that I can't read, but otherwise I largely agree with User:Bejnar above. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:41, 18 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:11, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NodeSystems

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

Non-notable software. No coverage in reliable sources found by Google using the Verbatim option (to avoid instances of "node systems" as two words). No indication of significance in the unreferenced article. —Largo Plazo (talk) 00:23, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Perhaps the author can work on it, but as-is I'm not seeing any notability. Bali88 (talk) 00:37, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do as you must - It may not be considered notable now, but it is and it will be one day... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgreenberg (talk • contribs) 00:44, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That may well be - see WP:TOOSOON. Stalwart111 00:57, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - right now I can't find anything to suggest this would meet WP:GNG. Stalwart111 00:57, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Software is actively developed and supported Jgreenberg (talk) 17:42, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note - Is industry notable because it is unique combination of terminal emulator with a shared central database / CMDB, further the central database is based on Graph_theory which makes it especially useful, queriable, open standard, and even academic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgreenberg (talk • contribs) 17:46, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I indicated, I was unable to find any coverage, industry sources included. If you can identify some suitable citations it could make a difference. Wikipedia doesn't concern itself with evaluating the utility, quality, or value of things. —Largo Plazo (talk) 23:41, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion to the author is to stick it in your sandbox and continue to look for quality sources. It likely will be notable in the future and you can repost then. :-) Bali88 (talk) 23:02, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

v t e Pan-nationalist concepts
Ideas	Atlanticism Afghan-Pakistani unionism Austro-Slavism Berberism Bulgarian-Romanian unionism Canada-USA unionism Central-americanism Czechoslovakism Enosis Estonian-Finnish unionism Eurasianism Fertile Crescent unionism Gaucho traditionalism [pt] Greek-Yugoslavian unionism Hungarian-Romanian unionism Gran Colombia unionism Indian-Pakistani Unionism Israeli-Palestinian unionism Latinoamericanism [es] Hellenoturkism Hispanoamericanism [es] League of East European States Neo-Ottomanism Netherlands-Indonesian unionism One China Romanian-moldovan unionism Pan-Africanism Union of African States Mali Federation Sahel-Benin Union Pan-Americanism Pan-Andinism [es] Ecuadorian-Peruvian-Bolivian unionism Peruvian-Bolivian unionism [es] Pan-Arabism Hashemite unionism United Arab States United Arab Republic Federation of Arab Republics Libyan-Syrian Union Arab Islamic Republic Jordania-Palestine unionism Union of Arab Republics (1972) Iraq-Kuwait unionism Pan-Asianism Pan-Caribbean Pan-Caucasianism Pan-Celticism Pan-Finnicism Pan-Germanism Pan-Europeanism European unionism Pan-European nationalism Panhispanism Pan-Iberism Pan-Indianism Pan-Iranism Pan-Islamism Pan-Latinism Mediterraneanism Pan-Mongolism Pan-Oceanianism Polish-Czechoslovak unionism Reintegrationism Saint Martin unionism Scandinavism Pan-Serbism Pan-Slavism Pan-Tatarism [ru; tt] Pan-Turkism Rattachism Rhodesia-Nyasaland unionism Soviet reunificationism Switzerland expansion Turanism Hungarian Turanism Yugoslavism
Territorial concepts	Abya Yala African federation Anglosphere Anglo-American unificationism Antillean Confederation Arab Union Arab world Assyria Balkan Federation Baltoscandia Basque Country British unionism Imperial Federation Cascadia movement Catalan Countries Celtic union Cossackia Danubian Confederation [de] East African Federation Federalisation of the European Union Greater Cambodia Caribbean Antilles West Indies Federation Franco-British Union Gran Colombia Greater Albania Unification of Albania and Kosovo Greater Argentina Greater Bangladesh Greater Bosnia Greater Bulgaria Greater China Greater Croatia Eritrean national identity nationalism Ethiopian national identity nationalism Greater Finland Galicia irredenta Greater Hungary Greater India Greater Indonesia Greater Iran Greater Iraq Greater Israel Greater Italy Greater Mauritania Greater Mexico Greater Moldova Greater Morocco Greater Nepal Greater Netherlands Greater Norway Greater Palestine Greater Poland Greater Portugal [pt] Greater Romania Greater Russia Greater Samoa Greater Serbia Greater Somalia Greater Spain Greater Syria Greater Tamil Nadu Great Timor Greater Ukraine Greater Vietnam Greater Yemen Greater Yugoslavia Hispanidad Indosphere Intermarium United States of Poland North American Union Latin Africa Lusosphere Malay world Maphilindo Megali Idea (Greece) Misak-ı Millî (Turkey) Kurdistan Occitania Padanian nationalism Pashtunistan Patria Grande Polynesian confederation Russian world Sahel Confederation Senegambia Confederation Sinosphere Tamazgha Triune Russia Union State United Armenia United Ireland United Macedonia Upper Peru Whole Azerbaijan Turan Zambesia
Pan-ethnic groups	Latinos, Hispanic peoples Habesha peoples

v t e Irredentism
Africa	Mauritania Morocco Somalia South Africa
North America	Canada Turks and Caicos Islands Mexico Saint Martin United States Canada Greenland Mexico Cuba Dominican Republic
South America	Argentina Chile Colombia
Western Asia	Armenia Artsakh Karabakh Assyria Azerbaijan Western Azerbaijan Cyprus Kurdistan Iran Iraq Israel Gathering of Israel Zionism Syria Turkey Aegean dispute Cyprus Pan-Turkism Yemen
Southern Asia	Bangladesh India Akhand Bharat Nepal Pakistan East Pakistan Kashmir Pashtunistan Tamil Nadu
Eastern and Southeastern Asia	Cambodia China unification with Taiwan annexation of Tibet Indonesia Japan Korea Malaysia Mongolia Philippines Thailand Timor Vietnam
Central and Eastern Europe	Belarus Czechoslovakia Hungary Moldova Poland Romania unification with Moldova Russia annexation and occupation of Crimea proposed annexation of South Ossetia invasion and occupation of Ukraine Slovenia Ukraine
Southern Europe	Albania unification with Kosovo Bosnia and Herzegovina Bulgaria Croatia Greece Aegean dispute Cyprus Enosis Megali Idea North Macedonia Serbia Kosovo Myth partition of Kosovo Spain Galicia Yugoslavia
Italy	Italy Corfu Corsica Dalmatia Istria Italian Grisons Malta Nice Savoy Ticino
Northern Europe	Finland Karelia
Western Europe	Belgium Celtics France Wallonia Germany Austria annexation of Austria Pan-Germanism Greater Germanic Reich Lebensraum Ireland Netherlands Switzerland
Oceania	Australia Papua New Guinea Samoa
Related concepts: Border changes since 1914 · Partitionism · Reunification · Revanchism · Revisionism · Rump state