Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 August 12

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log
< 11 August 13 August >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:30, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Denis Briand

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

fails WP:BIO and WP:DIPLOMAT. simply being an ambassador does not confer automatic notability. the only coverage I found confirms he was an ambassador but nothing indepth about him. LibStar (talk) 23:44, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 21:03, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nostalgia Wikipedia

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

This Google search doesn't yield anything that would seem to pass WP:42—some Encyclopedia Dramatica trolling, a few minor blog posts, and then basically a bunch of WMF stuff and mirrors. Nostalgia WP's cool and all, but I don't think it's notable enough for an article. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikimedia Meta-Wiki (2nd nomination): Our behind-the-scenes sites get a lot less press coverage than you'd think, most of the time. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 23:40, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. While not unanimous, the consensus here is that this article cannot be supported by the available sources without the use of original research. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:00, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sydney ethnic enclaves

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

the term "enclaves" is a very POV term with negative connotations, I do note it is used commonly in the USA but not as much elsewhere. but also it is unclear what qualifies a suburb as listed in the article as an "ethnic enclave", is it 30% of the population that is born in a particular country? it is very POV how suburbs are included in this list without clear criteria. LibStar (talk) 23:39, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've never heard the word enclave used negatively, and this article doesn't use it negatively. You can simply find another word to use instead if that's a problem. I added a link to the official census page of Sydney which shows the various ethnic groups do exist and in what numbers. [5] They all have their own Wikipedia articles also. There is also Chinatown, Sydney which talks about the Chinese enclave in Sydney. The "Birthplace of parents" section on the census site shows most of the people living in Sydney had parents born in other nations. Under "Language (other than English)" Arabic, Mandarin, Cantonese, Vietnamese, Greek appeared in sufficient number. A significant number of people are born in other nations according to the "Country of birth" section, and as I have said, most of those born in the country still had parents who were born elsewhere. Dream Focus 00:10, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Dream Focus 00:12, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In Australia, it is used negatively, a Government Minister used it in a negative context here [6]. Also what is the criterion to be classed as "enclave" what is " A significant number of people are born in other nations"? LibStar (talk) 00:14, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how its used negatively in that article. The dictionary the word clearly [7] as distinct territorial, cultural, or social unit enclosed within or as if within foreign territory <ethnic enclaves>. Dream Focus 00:20, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merriam Webster is a US dictionary and not really used in Australia. LibStar (talk) 00:59, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then find a popular dictionary in Australia. I'm sure the word means the same there too. Just look at how its used in news articles in that nation. And do you have any proof that anyone considers it negative in any possible way, or is that just your original research/wild imagination? Dream Focus 01:07, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Australia's premier dictionary Macquarie Dictionary defines enclave as "a country, or especially, an outlying portion of a country, entirely or mostly surrounded by the territory of another country". sounds like Kosovo or Tibet to me. LibStar (talk) 05:17, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just registered a free trial to see that. " 2. a small district or area enclosed within a larger one, as a suburb within a city, especially one characterised by a racial or political identity." You only quoted the first definition and ignored the second which defines exactly what we're talking about. Dream Focus 09:34, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
regardless you have failed to provide a definitive criterion for list inclusion. what is it? 20% born in that country, 40% that speak that speak that language? LibStar (talk) 01:19, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the name clear enough. Ethnic enclaves in the city of Sydney Australia. Dream Focus 01:28, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

how does a suburb get onto the list? what criteria is being used? LibStar (talk) 01:31, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The sole reference is very general, the necessary data is located in deep individual reports. There are also elements of WP:OR in the article. (What is the criteria for inclusion? What does "sizeable" mean?) Also a number of WP:POVish comments (eg "gentrification and rising house prices are forcing many Italians out of the area"). Who says? Generally a poorly written article that cannot likely be saved. WWGB (talk) 00:42, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment article says "There is a sizeable Maltese Australian population in Greystanes". yet only 3.6% of those in Greystanes are born in Malta. so is 3.6% the threshold to be an ethnic enclave? complete POV to me. LibStar (talk) 01:27, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2.6% of people born in Ingleburn, New South Wales come from Bangladesh and somehow it gets labelled an enclave where more residents in the suburb are born in India or the Phillipines. this is complete POV to label it a Bangladeshi ethnic enclave with no agreed defensible criteria. LibStar (talk) 01:38, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just state what percentage there is, and what the exact number is, according to the most recent census data. Far more encyclopedic than using vague words like "sizeable". Dream Focus 01:48, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
you still haven't stated the critera to be listed on this list. LibStar (talk) 02:01, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kogarah is a listed as an ethnic enclave for Macedonians yet the article says top "countries of birth being China 12.0%, Nepal 6.5% and Bangladesh 4.4%." again complete POV. LibStar (talk) 02:04, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you are going to bother to look up information, why not use it to correct any mistakes you find in the article and reference it, as I have been doing? Dream Focus 02:10, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

you still haven't stated the critera to be listed on this list. no point correcting when there is no clear criteria for list inclusion. LibStar (talk) 02:10, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Further comment references can establish a certain % ethnic population in a particular suburb, but there are hardly any references describing suburbs as "enclaves". it is therefore complete POV to use such a label. nor could this article be renamed "list of suburbs with significant ethnic populations" because significant is undefined too. LibStar (talk) 06:29, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article seems to have been created around stereotypes of Sydney's population, and a misunderstanding what the term "enclave" actually means, and has no useful encyclopedic value. While some parts of Sydney have higher-than-average proportions of groups from particular backgrounds (as would be expected for any large city with a large migrant population), the proportion generally isn't terribly high. Importantly, people from these groups routinely move in and out of other parts of the city and interact with people from other backgrounds. As such, it isn't accurate to describe the certain suburbs as being "enclaves" of one group or another. This can be easily tested through the Australian Burueau of Statistics census data - for example, people from China make up only 30% of the supposed Chinese "enclave" of Eastwood [8], the "large community" of Sudanese people in Blacktown is actually so small that the ABS doesn't report it in the Census summary for the suburb [9] only 11% of people in the claimed South African "enclave" of St Ives are from South Africa: [10] and only 15% of people in the Jewish "enclave" of Bondi report Judaism as their religion [11] (where they're heavily outnumbered by people with no religion). This seems to actually be a 'List of ethnic and religious stereotypes associated with Sydney suburbs', and should be deleted. Nick-D (talk) 09:28, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many articles exist about this subject. Category:Ethnic enclaves Many have the term ethnic enclave in their name. Australian newspapers talk about the "ethnic enclaves" regularly. [12] So the name isn't offensive. It is clearly defined as mentioned previously. Dream Focus 10:03, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have been adding references to Australian news sources that mention the ethnic enclaves, calling them that, and listing which neighborhoods have what percentage of which group in them. Articles like this [13] help prove reliable sources do cover this information. Dream Focus 10:03, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which will get us to something like "List of Sydney suburbs Bernard Salt has described as being ethnic enclaves", which doesn't strike me as being very useful I'm afraid (the Census was in 2011, not 2012 BTW). There isn't much support for such a concept in the academic literature, where a quick Google scholar search returns not all that many useful results, with many of these appearing to argue that Sydney doesn't have ethnic enclaves: [14] A few academic articles do seem to apply the "enclave" terminology, but many seem to argue that it's invalid. Nick-D (talk) 10:15, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did anyone actually read the very first paragraph of that article:

What proportion of the population by country of birth dominates which suburbs? Where are the most intense immigrant concentrations? And are these concentrations sufficiently distinctive to qualify as ethnic enclaves?

The author questions the legitimacy of the term "enclave" to describe groups that our article then unequivocally describes as "ethnic enclaves". He's asked the question (about his own research) and we've answered it for him with an unwavering yes! How is that not original research? Stalwart111 12:58, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • And source 1:

Those who oppose immigration and multiculturalism deride these suburbs as ethnic enclaves and ‘no go’ areas.

[Underlining mine]. Yes, a term of derision. And...

The most interesting product developed from these suburbs is the move from ethnic enclaves [negative] to cultural precincts [positive].

[Brackets mine]. Says it all really. Stalwart111 13:05, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - in Australia, "enclave" is the word you use when you want to describe a small group of migrants living in one particular area who sell products popular with their own culture, put up signs in their own language and generally "refuse" (so it is claimed) to integrate with people not from their own culture in the suburbs around them. I'd almost suggest in some cases the word has been used as synonymous with "ghetto". Such descriptions almost always have racial undertones and in Australia are often accompanied by racist epithets like "Vietnamatta" (a racist portmanteau of Vietnamese - the people - and Cabramatta - the suburb). Enclave is probably used by older white Australians (like Bernard Salt) in its original context, though they did so in the context of the White Australia policy. See, particularly, it's use here in the Sydney Morning Herald to describe Hong Kong and here to describe rich South African immigrants on Sydney's North Shore, here to describe an Aboriginal community with it's own language and here to poke fun at inner city hipsters. Down here, it's not a nice word. We shouldn't be using it in the context of an article title, regardless of how many old white men use the term in reliable sources.
Beyond that, the definitions are hopelessly POV, many of the claims are completely unsourced, many "obvious" communities have been left off the list and much of the "information" is clearly based on someone's recollection of the "good old days" when certain groups congregated in certain areas (but they have long since moved elsewhere making parts of the list about 50 years out of date). Stalwart111 12:49, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and extracting raw data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) and their Census (currently 3 of the 6 sources) and then extrapolating/interpreting our own conclusions about what that raw data means in terms of ethnic diversity is pure, unadulterated original research. Stalwart111 13:02, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
excellent reasoning Stalwart, you've hit the nail on the head on why this is POV and OR. LibStar (talk) 02:51, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've set up a related discussion on the category here Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 August 15. LibStar (talk) 03:16, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree with Stalwart111's comments: in the Australian context, claims that certain groups live in an 'enclave' are generally used to attack that group though an assertion that they're not mixing with the general population and are "taking over" various regions (and generally, by extension, that letting them into the country was a mistake). This isn't actually true for any ethnic group in Australia. Nick-D (talk) 22:47, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The article title is "... enclaves", the main section is "List of enclaves" - and we all appear to agree that an enclave is an area - but what follows is a list of ethnicities, not a list of areas (eg suburbs). If the article is to be kept, we need to change the main section name to "Ethnic groups" or similar, because that's what they are listed by. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:52, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Dream Focus 17:42, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per Stalwart111. POV, OR, unreliably sourced, divisive and unencyclopedic. Why we persist in allowing opinion pieces like this masquerading as articles to exist is beyond me. It does us no credit. Begoon talk 06:41, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Ridicolous debates on the word "enclave" being offensive (if it really is, which we have no evidence of, it's just a matter of renaming the page -therefore it doesn't require deletion), the topic of ethnically-enriched neighbourhoods in the city is notable, per sources found by User:Dream Focus etc. No OR is needed if we stick to the sources -remember that OR and POV are about content, not about topic, and as such can be solved by editing: therefore our deletion policy requires us to keep, if that's all the concerns we have.-- cyclopiaspeak! 15:47, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • regardless of the "offensiveness" of the term, what is the criteria for getting suburbs on the list? what minimum % makes it a enclave? there is no clear criteria, simply saying "reliable sources" is not good enough, the sources like the Bernard Salt article is simply an opinion piece. it is not like a list of heritage listed buildings where it is clear cut it is in or not. LibStar (talk) 23:52, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we've well and truly established that, in Australia, the term is offensive. Even the sources highlighted by those seeking to keep the article refer to it as a term of "derision". If you have an alternate term that accurately explains these areas (which we don't really have in Australia) then by all means, feel free to suggest an alternate title. If you think we can accurately refine the term "ethnically-enriched neighbourhood" in an Australian context, with reliable sources, go for it. The reality is that the premise of the article is original research - "ethnic enclaves" have x features - these locations in Sydney have x features - therefore these locations in Sydney are "ethnic enclaves" without reliable sources saying as much. Stalwart111 00:57, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Silly late-night bickering.
  • Any particular reason? What reliable sources establish this as a topic and then establish the listed suburbs as "ethnic enclaves"? The contention from most respondents is that ethnic enclaves don't exist in Sydney and that the term is used differently there. So how can we have an article about Sydney ethnic enclaves? That's like an article about New Mexico glaciers. Stalwart111 11:44, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sources speak clearly and neutrally about the existence of Sydney ethnic enclaves. Examples:
  • In "Sociology in Today's World" there is a full chapter devoted to the concept of "ethnic enclave" in Australia/NZ, where you can find a definition of the term, which has no offensive/slur overtones at all: "An ethnic enclave is a spatial concentration of ethnic group members who establish businesses that serve and employ mainly members of the ethnic group and reinvest profits in community businesses and organization" and then discusses the Vietnamese enclave in Sydney and others in Australia.
More books:
And news sources follow: "Unlike the mixed population of Greenacre, Annandale is an ethnic enclave where residents are surrounded by those of their kind." (Sydney Morning Herald) ; "Arncliffe, 10km south of the city centre, a place settled mainly by Lebanese Muslims since the 1970s that was once feared to be an ethnic enclave of crime and unemployment." (The Australian). Do I need to add more sources? There are. Before replying, please take care of giving them a look. -- cyclopiaspeak! 12:56, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
More sources that establish the term:
Silly late-night bickering.
  • I honestly don't know where to start. Did you actually read those sources before you listed them here? I don't know whether you're trying to quote them out of context or whether you legitimately don't understand the context. The first source describes "south-west Sydney" as an ethnic enclave - an area of about 1 million people. The second describes Sydney neighbourhoods with clusters of residents of different backgrounds and then says an ethnic enclave is very different to a neighbourhood with clusters of residents of different backgrounds. The third isn't in the context of Sydney at all - the author talks about the want of Sydney Jews to assimilate and then describes what can happen if they don't; forming enclaves. The fourth gives Dunn's view of Fairfield - 40% of Sydney's Vietnamese immigrants live there. But even with that 40%, Vietnamese immigrants only make up 8.5% of Fairfield's population. Not an enclave by any description we use here and the author then goes on to note that such media representations of Fairfield as an enclave are "contested" (Dunn himself) and that the suburb has also been considered "an exemplar of cultural diversity" ("and as a poor ghetto"). The fifth describes Sydney (with its population of 4 million or so) as an "ethnic enclave" - the argument being that people from other cultures will be comfortable in a multicultural city - not individual suburbs. Should I start on your press articles, one of which is clearly sarcastic and tongue-in-cheek? Talk about surreal. Stalwart111 13:50, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The first source describes "south-west Sydney" as an ethnic enclave - an area of about 1 million people. - Thanks -so what? If you want to debate with the source, go ahead and publish your own rebuke in the academic literature. Besides, it doesn't describe the whole south-east of the city as an enclave, read more carefully. It says that they headed there.
The second describes Sydney neighbourhoods with clusters of residents of different backgrounds and then says an "ethnic enclave is very different to a neighbourhood with clusters of residents of different backgrounds". That's because it clarifies the precise meaning of the expression "ethnic enclave". Again, you are free to publish your own research on reliable sources if you disagree with it.
The third isn't in the context of Sydney at all - the author talks about the want of Sydney Jews to assimilate - So it's not about Sydney, but it talks of Sydney Jews. Nice self-contradiction.
The fourth gives Dunn's view of Fairfield - 40% of Sydney's Vietnamese immigrants live there. But even with that 40%, Vietnamese immigrants only make up 8.5% of Fairfield's population. Not an enclave by any description we use here : Here we use what sources say. If you disagree with Dunn, again, go publish your own book/academic peer-reviewed paper on the topic (or bring sources that show disagreeing academic consensus).
and the author then goes on to note that such media representations of Fairfield as an enclave are "contested" - Sure. Contested doesn't mean "completely discredited", as far as I've seen. We can also include the controversy in the article (e.g. "Fairfield has been called an enclave... but this is contested...).
The fifth describes Sydney (with its population of 4 million or so) as an "ethnic enclave" - What? Can you point me where?
And yes, I know one of the press pieces is a bit tongue in cheek, so? It is whimsical but it does not look nonsensical. Still, remove it, no problem: there are all the sociology books above. -- cyclopiaspeak! 14:03, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You've gone from misinterpreting the sources to misquoting me (cutting my comments in half and then claiming what remains is a self-contradiction). I don't disagree with Dunn - Dunn disagrees with the idea of describing Fairfield as an enclave. It's not my "original research" at all. You claimed your sources substantiate the "existence of Sydney ethnic enclaves" and yet among all of your sources not a single one is substantiated except, maybe, "south-west Sydney" (all of it - the author didn't want to get too specific). What's your argument? That they "exist" because people have talked about the concept in a Sydney context but we can't identify any particular enclaves, nor can we nail down a criteria by which they might be identified? I'm more than happy to let others judge your "sources" for themselves. Stalwart111 14:29, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's beginning to be hard to assume good faith here. Talk about "misinterpreting the sources". For example, to think that the first source calls all of south-west Sydney as an enclave equals that, if I say that "I live in southern London", then I imply that all of Southern London is my home. It doesn't take great reading skills to see that the first source just implies that such an enclave is located in south-west Sydney, not that it's all of it. About Dunn: Yes, he debates the ethnic enclave definition. But still it recognizes that it is considered, elsewhere, as such. That someone disagrees with a specific place being called like that doesn't jeopardize the concept as a whole (just like saying "whales aren't fish" doesn't mean the concept of "fish" is senseless). Et cetera. Sources above substantiate very well that there is an academic literature that talks about the enclaves and that uses the term, and that's enough for our notability guidelines. The need of a further, arbitrary "criteria" to "nail down" is just yours -our criteria, on Wikipedia, is sources, not arbitrary whims. But yes, let's leave others judging the sources. -- cyclopiaspeak! 14:40, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good faith? You deliberately misquoted me. Your very first contribution to this debate was to call the discussion "ridiculous". Oh the WP:IRONY. It's not my criteria at all - the very first contributor here argued this was a list article and suggested it should be kept and renamed List of Sydney ethnic enclaves and you cited his argument in your first contribution. I don't think it stands up either as a stub (with no particular suburbs specified) or a list (with a bunch of unsourced claims about various suburbs). Stalwart111 15:22, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You deliberately misquoted me. - I didn't deliberately misquote anyone (and in fact you've shown no proof of this) and this is kind of insulting. Please remove this attack. Also, calling a discussion "ridicolous" doesn't mean it is in bad faith -quite the opposite. Also I didn't cite any argument at all in my first edit, I spoke about the sources found by Dream Focus - far from me misquoting you, this is you misrepresenting my arguments, instead, quite clearly. -- cyclopiaspeak! 15:38, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"The author talks about the want of Sydney Jews to assimilate and then describes what can happen if they don't; forming enclaves" became "The author talks about the want of Sydney Jews to assimilate" without my description of the second section of that passage - which was clearly the point of my comment; that there was a second (separate) section to that passage - so you could describe it as a "nice self contradiction". And my point was that you had clearly read DF's commentary - because you referenced his sources - but missed the bit where he called for it to be turned into a list and then attributed that suggestion to me - "just yours". And you think calling the discussions of others "ridiculous" is a good-faith contribution ("quite the opposite" of bad-faith)? Wow. Stalwart111 15:55, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. It's quite hard to discuss with such a list of non-sequiturs. However:
  • clearly the point of my comment - That's because such a second part is irrelevant. You said that it wasn't about Sydney and then you said it's about Sydney. That "then describes what can happen if they don't form enclaves" is true but also irrelevant. Either it's about Sydney or it isn't. I can quote it in full if you prefer.
  • you had clearly read DF's commentary - Yes I did. That I've read and acknowledged the sourcing does not mean that I endorsed all of it.
  • then attributed that suggestion to me - Nope. You seem to have an habit of jumping at conclusions. I attributed to you only your own words -that is, when you asked for some kind of arbitrary criteria to nail down in addition to sources. That this stemmed from DF's suggestion or something else is entirely irrelevant.
  • And you think calling the discussions of others "ridiculous" is a good-faith contribution - Yes, of course. Perhaps you need to check what bad faith means:

Bad faith (Latin: mala fides) is double mindedness or double heartedness in duplicity, fraud, or deception.

Now, where is the duplicity,fraud, or deception in giving an opinion that a discussion sounds silly? While, conversely, there is a lot of (intentional or not, I don't know) deception going on in your playing down the relevance of the above sources. But given your bewildering comment on "bad faith" and the "source claims all of Sydney is an enclave" nonsenses, I begin to suspect it is about language/reading skills. -- cyclopiaspeak! 16:09, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're a riot! The duplicity is in coming to a civil, collegial discussion and seeking to join said discussion by first branding the prior contributions of colleagues as "ridiculous". And if at first you don't succeed, be the first to shout competence! (after misquoting me again and changing the meaning of my comment). Too funny. Stalwart111 23:20, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually you're the first who shouted "competence!" above. But it's clear you have no interest in a good faith discussion, given that you continue to call copy-and-pastes of your comments "misquotes" and you spew nonsense about what is simply a frank comment about the discussion of "offensiveness" of a technical sociological term. I understand you are passionate about this issue, for some unfathomable reason: but this behaviour is very baffling and sad. -- cyclopiaspeak! 08:32, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I still hope this is just a sincere, mutual misunderstanding. I left a message on your talk page, this discussion is not really useful here anymore.-- cyclopiaspeak! 08:43, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed and I have responded there. Stalwart111 10:12, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Section break

edit
  • Let's look at some of these sources from Cyclopia, almost all do not establish individual suburbs of Sydney as ethnic enclaves but generally refer to the concept of enclaves generally in Australia. An argument for keep here is that sources exist, but none of these sources "prove" individual suburbs as enclaves. this provides no base for including individual suburbs in this article under AfD. the whole point of Sydney ethnic enclaves article is to list individual suburbs.
  • this one mentions ethnic enclaves but the word Sydney is several paragraphs later, so it does not directly refer to the existence of ethnic enclaves in particular suburbs.
  • similarly this one and this and this do not refer to suburbs that may be enclaves.
  • this one does not argue Annandale is an ethnic enclave is actually says Not only do suburbs such as Annandale and Newtown have fewer migrants than the average Sydney suburb.
  • this one is someone's opinion in a book and again does not refer to specific suburbs in Sydney
  • this one specifically refers to Arncliffe, but it seems to refer to enclave as a term used in the past not present. LibStar (talk) 23:44, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
so my assessment here, is that one can find literature with the words enclaves and Sydney on the same page, but very little sources that attribute individual suburbs as "ethnic enclaves". LibStar (talk) 02:09, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We do not need to have a list of individual enclaves. We should not reason about the actual shape of the article, but about the topic. Everything else can be dealt with editing. The topic of Sydney ethnic enclaves is notable (even if perhaps would be better merged in Australian ethnic enclaves or something like that). The concept is sound and far from being "offensive" as someone argued above. That's all we need for keeping. Everything else is cleanup. -- cyclopiaspeak! 08:35, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong. Someone not using his real name (talk) 11:55, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

you're basically suggesting a major rewrite of the current article to fit your sources and a more generic topic of Sources that perhaps list Sydney and ethnic enclaves on the same page without reference to specific suburbs. LibStar (talk) 23:58, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A major rewrite would be a good idea. Given that AfD is not cleanup and that what can be solved by editing has to be solved by editing, per our deletion policy, that an article requires to be mostly rewritten is not a reason to delete it. Sources above show clearly that the concept meets WP:GNG and is covered in a lot of reliable, academic literature. AfD is about the suitability of the topic, not about the suitability of the current state of the article. --cyclopiaspeak! 08:56, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see how converting the article from a list to something entirely different and massively broadening the topic to Australian ethnic enclaves are suggestions in favor of keeping this. Maybe everybody here would be in favor of keeping what you're proposing, but we can't really be sure because what you're proposing bears only a casual relationship with the article and topic under discussion here. WP:BLOWITUP, etc. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 23:49, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The earlier debate seems to ignore the fact that with some populations (Maltese Australians, Macedonian Australians, etc.), there will be lots of people who so identify but who were born in Australia. So just looking at the percentage born in a certain place will not tell you what percentage identifies as part of a given ethnic group.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:13, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename To something like Location of ethnic groups in Sydney. The article is focused on where particular ethnic groups live, so it is about the placement of those groups, not the overall character of the locations. If a group is small enough 100% of its members could live in one location, and yet be only a small percentage of the population there.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:15, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"If a group is small enough 100% of its members could live in one location" . that is definitely not true in Sydney, census data reveals that there is no one suburb where 100% of migrants of that ethnicity live in Sydney. if that were the case, yes "enclaves" would exist. but evidence is sorely lacking of existence of enclaves in individual suburbs. LibStar (talk) 23:58, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per LibStar's analysis of sourcing. Much less concerned about debate over whether or not the term is offensive, but there doesn't seem to be reliable sourcing to back up the article and topic currently under discussion. Suggested alternative topics such as Australian ethnic enclaves don't seem to me to have a meaningful editorial relationship with this topic. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 23:49, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There are about 45 different things wrong with this article. The title is neither common usage nor inoffensive. The sourcing is weak. Some of the enclaves themselves are not notable, and the rest can just have their own articles without this list existing pbp 00:39, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve. Ethnic composition is a valid subject; there is nothing inherently POV here. Yes, it can be sourced better, just as any other wikipedia page. My very best wishes (talk) 04:15, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
please define the unambiguous criteria for listing a suburb in this article, no keep !voter has done this yet. LibStar (talk) 04:24, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I too am interested in knowing the threshold percentage of the population that entitles an ethnicity to be considered an "enclave". At the very least, it would have to be the dominant ethnicity in that region. For example, in Haymarket, New South Wales, Chinese is the dominant ethnicity. Where else, if anywhere, is this true? WWGB (talk) 04:44, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
please define the unambiguous criteria for listing a suburb in this article, no keep !voter has done this yet. - Don't be disingenuous, I clearly stated it above. The one and only criteria is reliable sources defining it as an ethnic enclave. We need no more, no less. And nothing prohibits us to make it an article about the enclaves in general, instead than a list-like article. --cyclopiaspeak! 08:53, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
and what is the criteria to list suburbs by ethnic concentrations? 5%? 15% ? LibStar (talk) 07:13, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article, of coure, does not (and does not attempt to) list suburbs by ethnic concentrations. Rather it provides factually verifiable information of the form: [As of year X], people of ethnicity Y in Sydney tended to concentrate in [parts] of area/suburb Z. Sociologists may standardly refer to such concentrations as "ethnic enclaves". - 122.56.121.138 (talk) 07:49, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree with the reasoning of Stalwart111 and AndyTheGrump. Poorly researched article that is basically WP:OR and offensive by its choice of terminology. Demographics of Sydney#Ethnic groups already has some better-sourced info and plenty of room to add more, making this AfD'd page a mostly unsourced WP:POVFORK. Also note two academic WP:RS disputing that the term "enclave" is appropriate for Sydney's situation [16][17]. Someone not using his real name (talk) 12:15, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As a former taxi driver in a metropolitan area, I am familiar with the sort of urban micro-geography involved here. As sourcing may be difficult, a well-referenced article may be difficult, and worse than that, subject to rapid change in the situation on the ground, which combined with lack of good references may present problems. However, despite this article being close to the natural limits of Wikipedia, it is of value to our readers. User:Fred Bauder Talk 13:24, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"As a former taxi driver in a metropolitan area" is WP:IKNOWIT and original research. LibStar (talk) 01:21, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:25, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gliese 420

edit
Gliese 420 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't seem to meet WP:NASTRO. StringTheory11 (t • c) 23:25, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. No prejudice towards redirection. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:55, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gliese 269

edit
Gliese 269 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't seem to meet WP:NASTRO. StringTheory11 (t • c) 23:20, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 21:03, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Forgotten (Green Day song)

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

Contested PROD (nominated by a different editor) for the fallacious reason of all songs deserve articles. Original concern was "Lack of notability, the song has never been released as a single or promotional single. Not all songs with music videos require an article, and in this songs case that is the only notable thing about it." — Richard BB 22:05, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NSONG mentions nothing about being a single or an album, merely that it has to appear in a music or sales chart of significance. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:48, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It really doesn't matter considering it isn't a notable song anyway. It really isn't deserving of its own article when other songs in Green Day's catalogue that are significant had articles that were closed for "lack of notability". This song really lacks anything significant that makes it deserving of its own article, and it listed in the discography page that this song charted. In fact everything mentioned in this article has already been mentioned in other articles. --Ral539(talk) 10:33, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The guideline quite specifically states that songs that have charted on a major chart are notable enough for their own articles, which this one did. Your argument against notability seems to be that everything in this article was already said somewhere else, which isn't true either. Some stuff, notably the content in the Reception section, seems to be unique to this article. TCN7JM 10:46, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 15:35, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Razanne

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

Article reads as advertisement, has had a "no references" tag since 2009. Notability is not established. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:09, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep, because it is an article I originated and I do not like to have articles I started deleted. But, as a matter of fact, I myself had forgotten all about the toy until brought back to my attention by this. As far as it sounding like advertisement, I never stooped that low. In fact I've placed the advertisement tag on som e articles myself. Antonio A tempo slow Martin 23:25, 12 August, 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep. This toy has received lots of substantial coverage. Most are paywalled, but the news button in this nomination gave me several. Here's one, another, another, another, another, and another. There's more news sources then this, with some in different languages. Also note the book sources, too. Seems to me like a WP:BEFORE failure. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 22:48, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:26, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A New Era Begins (ECW)

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

No evidence that this event even happened. A Google search comes up with this article and several fan made ECW events, but not one actually promoted by ECW itself Girfuy Ya Bawbag (talk) 21:05, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I've found a few bits about the show, so I do think it did exist. But it doesn't seem to be anything more than a weekly episode of Hardcore TV. Either way I don't think this is going to pass GNG as the only somewhat reliable sources that mention it do so in a trivial passing manner.LM2000 (talk) 04:41, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Just to slightly correct LM2000, I think in fact it may have been a major house show that was taped and shown in pieces on Hardcore TV. Aside from that, yes it's not notable even though it would appear it did happen. It's certainly not up there with the ECW PPV's. BerleT (talk) 01:19, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as lacking in depth coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:29, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. LFaraone 01:26, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sare Jahan Se Achcha (pencil sketch)

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

Seems to fail WP:GNG and works as a coat rack. The high number of relevant people pictured, dies not necessarily make the sketch notable The Banner talk 20:56, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Sources a bit difficult due to language barrier but there seems to be attention paid. BTW other pencil sketches make the claim to being the world's largest so that probably should be deleted or given qualifier and source, or removed. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:22, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Dear Green Cardamom, Thanks for bringing the issue to notice. I have removed the claim unless proper referee, which is awaited.
  • Keep - Art in India suffers from a greater lack of coverage than the West due to far greater preoccupation with livelihood, lower levels of income, lower levels of literacy, and education in India. Typically, any significant Indian work of art also draws much less media refs/google links than one created in the West. Hence the same yardstick may not be suitable else art in India will not be able to make it to Wikipedia because of this biased yardstick. AshLin (talk) 12:39, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdraw. SL93 (talk) 20:42, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OHMS (1980 film)

edit
OHMS (1980 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I found no significant coverage for this film. While Leslie Nielsen is notable, this film was not a significant part of his career. Fails WP:NF. SL93 (talk) 20:11, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy Keep per WP:SNOW as there is no support for the nom. Warden (talk) 09:04, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Synthetic fabric

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

Article in unsourced and makes several false claims. Poorly written. Made redundant by articles on polyester, synthetic fiber, etc. Eliminate1337 (talk) 19:59, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note I would like to point out that the user account nominating this article for deletion appears to have been created solely for that purpose. This encourages me to be slightly wary. I would also point out that the nomination makes no explicit reference to any WP:POLICIES. The nominator should rectify this. Benboy00 (talk) 01:25, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think that this article should certainly be kept, as it is, at least in theory, distinct from synthetic fibres. It does, of course, need a lot of work, as it has absolutely no sources. It also does not have much activity. I think this article has potential, but I myself am not going to work on it. If noone else expresses interest in working on it either, then I shall change my vote to a delete Benboy00 (talk) 01:25, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per above. No doubt it's notable, though it needs a ton of work. At the least, WP:TNT redirect it to Synthetic fiber. Ansh666 02:21, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Indisputably notable, encyclopaedic topic. Yes, it needs clean-up, but this does seem like an exceptionally bad-faith nomination. At the very least, the redirect Ansh suggests above is a sufficient place-holder until such time as someone wishes to expand it into the improved article it should be. Mabalu (talk) 02:55, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep SK1 - Bad-faith nomination that does not articulate any policy-based reason for deletion. AfD is not for cleanup. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:48, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A truly dreadful article, but there are worse in Wikipedia, and the notability of the topic is beyond dispute. I note that this article is flagged as within the scope of WikiProject Textile Arts which is itself tagged as inactive - there are other very unsatisfactory articles in scope and this is an area that desperately needs work. But deleting will solve nothing. Dare I say (as a man) that this is an example of the unintended gender bias in WP which still has to be resolved. It needs people who understand textiles at all levels. --AJHingston (talk) 12:06, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Biased indeed, you are. Both my grandfather and father worked in textiles at some point in their lives, while all my grandmother and mother know how to do is knit and sew. That said, that was over 30 years ago (so no synthetics) and in a country where en-wiki isn't too well represented. Ansh666 17:37, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was not for a moment suggesting that this was not a matter on which men could not contribute usefully, especially when it comes to the technology and manufacture. I had better not go further than that for fear of offending somebody else. My point was rather that textiles and clothing are traditionally something that women have been more interested in than men, and contrasting the inadequate coverage of these with more traditionally male topics - cars, ships, aircraft, men's sports etc. For what it is worth the reason that I have been aware of the problem is that I have had occasion to look up clothing and textiles in WP precisely because I do not know much about them, and been generally very disappointed, so I do not want to suggest either that only women will be interested. It really does not matter who writes the articles so long as they know what they are talking about and can do it well. As for dynamiting articles such as this, it would be fine if they were to be replaced by something better, but the evidence is that they would not.
I knew I would get into trouble for bringing sex into it. --AJHingston (talk) 19:12, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ick. Sorry you thought I was offended...internet can't convey tone. I was just trying to point out that it's not just the gender bias, it's the other biases, like internet accessibility and time-type things. Ansh666 22:23, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry, I thought I might possibly have upset you, but I was expecting someone to challenge my comment. This is a sensitive area. Whatever the reasons, and I suspect that they are less to do with practicalities than personalities and personal inclinations, those who might have been expected to produce good articles on these topics have simply failed to do so. It may be that blogs and Tumblr are a more attractive outlet than the grind of putting together a WP article. But I would like to see that change. --AJHingston (talk) 23:21, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I have done a VERY quick tidy-up and edit on the article, but while I am a textile/fashion cove, I honestly don't know too much about the chemical processes and stuff. No time at the moment to work on it in more depth. Not sure that making a bad article appear slightly less badly written isn't doing more harm than good... Mabalu (talk) 02:16, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:27, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IFunny

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

Procedural nomination. Singularity42 (talk · contribs) PRODed it with the comment "Non-notable app". I have removed the PROD and nominated here instead because I thought that there may be objections. It's actually a pretty popular application, but that is irrelevant here. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 19:55, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:27, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Ching

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

No independent sources, no reliable sources, no notable bands for which he's played, salary of $7.50/hr per infobox (just kidding about the last one but is worth a chuckle) Boogerpatrol (talk) 19:32, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:11, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Björn Djupström

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

Per WP:BLP this article is not notable. There are hundreds and thousands of songwriters who have written or produced notable songs but where little is known about them as individuals they are often exempt from BLP articles as there often isnt enough information to warrnat the article or there isnt enough coverage from reliable sources. Both of which are a problem in this instance. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 00:38, 29 July 2013 (UTC) — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 00:38, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:51, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:51, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*Let's talk!* 05:41, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*Let's talk!* 18:20, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:11, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Photon dynamics in the double-slit experiment

edit
Photon dynamics in the double-slit experiment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This long personal essay is essentially unsourced, citing only general textbooks. It has had no discussion, little participation, and is unlikely to be supportable by any sources. Dicklyon (talk) 20:38, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 23:50, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep neutral. AfD on an interesting topic has the makings of a good article (but not a GA). It rambles and does not go very far. Physics is mainstream (as far as it goes), no crankery here. Needs improvement. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:35, 29 July 2013 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete. Most of the article is regurgitations of general physics topics only very tenuously connected to the double-slit experiment specifically, trying desperately to impart some heft by association with noteworthy subjects - what I would call WP:TOSSINTHEKITCHENSINK (WP:KITCHENSINK is taken). For example, the energy and momentum of a photon each get a subsection, but what does that have to do with the experiment? It's like starting an article about tires with a long description of what a circle is, followed by a soliloquy about the road system of the United States. There's nothing here that double-slit experiment lacks. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:30, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
User:Complexica created both at the same size and same time. Photon polarization in Aug. 2006 and this one in Sept. 2006. Lots of text re-use for sure. Not much would be lost if we delete. Dicklyon (talk) 21:43, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:06, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*Let's talk!* 18:18, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000(talk) 20:15, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mother's Choice (Hong Kong)

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

Obviously promotional article that might need WP:TNT if it were notable, but with only passing coverage in reliable sources, isn't. (The vast majority of the hits are about a giant truffle fungus, proceeds from the auction of which went to this group; there are also a number of paid press releases, other trivial mentions, and apparently one proper source.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:01, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I removed the prod and recommended that Roscelese take it to AfD. There's a temptation to see such a lengthy and detailed article as an obvious keeper, but as noted in the nom, once you actually look at the sources, there isn't much in the way of independent RS. There could be a cultural bias issue here though: I lack the competence in Chinese languages to assess all the possible sources. Leaning towards a weak keep, but let's see what happens. Tigerboy1966  15:34, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I also don't read Chinese, but from what I can tell from Google Translate, the sourcing or lack thereof in both of HK's official languages is comparable - tons of trivial (and truffle) mentions, some of what appears to be paid publicity. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:41, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 16:04, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 16:04, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:09, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*Let's talk!* 18:17, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Obvious promotional. The references by the user above are from the website of the subject. Clicking through on any of the links on that page shows most are press release/promotional stories. Caffeyw (talk) 09:49, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They are news coverage published by third parties although they are not all available online. STSC (talk) 20:06, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I have significantly improved the article to be more encyclopedic and less promotional. STSC (talk) 00:30, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Article still reads as promotional, plus references are company produced reports, the company website, etc. The sections with references elsewhere are not about the company. ie A section posts about needing sex education, and links to a website supporting that, however those references have nothing to do with supporting the notability of the company itself. Caffeyw (talk) 01:31, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As the article has been tagged, it would continue to be cleaned up through regular editing. STSC (talk) 22:33, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 21:03, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hossein Hosseini

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:59, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:00, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The lead of the article says he plays for a pro league. Is that a false statement? If not, then what is the problem? ~Amatulić (talk) 18:17, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    He may be signed to a club in a fully pro league, but he has yet to actually play for them. WP:NFOOTBALL specifically says: A player who signs for a domestic team but has not played in any games is not deemed to have participated in a competition, and is therefore not generally regarded as being notable. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:48, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I don't really follow this sport, but isn't it reasonable to assume that he'll be playing in one of the team's upcoming games? Or does the team maintain a permanent contingent of second-stringers that play only when a first-stringer becomes unavailable?
I guess I'm asking, if he isn't notable now, but could become notable at any moment simply by participating in a game, is it worth deleting the article? ~Amatulić (talk) 22:13, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming he'll play, whether its a reasonable assumption or not, is speculation in violation of WP:CRYSTAL and never grounds for notability. That being said, as a second choice goalkeeper his chances of playing a league match are virtually zero unless the first choice keeper is injured. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:49, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WP:SNOW, and G11 as this is clearly intended to promote "Cloud Network Bank". The Bushranger One ping only 23:06, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Network banking

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

Reads like an essay, no sources, no evidence anyone actually uses this term. Original PROD reason was: "As written now, this is unsourced and doesn't even make sense. My guess is that whatever concept this author was going for is already covered in another article. Unless sources can be provided to show that this is a notable standalone concept, it should be deleted." Jackmcbarn (talk) 17:50, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I was going to suggest redirection, but realized there probably isn't a good target. The article seems to be saying that many companies now use the internet for banking, or for transfer of funds. It's really saying nothing of consequence, it's unsourced, and I don't even think it's a relevant search term that needs redirecting. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:10, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Worthless title for an article and incomprehensible text. A look at the history is interesting as it seems to have been created by someone trying to promote something called the Cloud Network Bank. That might be a clue as to the intended topic, and cloud network banking seems to be a buzz-word at present - see eg this article in The Economist. If it is not adequately covered elsewhere in WP it probably ought to be. It is not quite the same thing as Online banking. But this article is not about it either. --AJHingston (talk) 12:30, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:28, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Academic programs in acoustics

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

A fair amount of work has went into this page, and I'm not keen to see it lost, but on the other hand, this does seem like a textbook case of WP:NOTDIR. Unless a compelling argument can be made for why we should keep this (AFAIK, no other disciplines have such lists), I think this one has to go the way of the dodo. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:47, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:29, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Marlys Pearson

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

Fails WP:GNG. Has not received significant coverage. Article's sole reliable source only mentions the subject in passing. Most of the article's information is unreferenced. Hirolovesswords (talk) 17:36, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:23, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Solar Midget Race Car

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

No evidence of notability, no sources. A search for sources found no proof of notability, nor much information reH ghun ghunwI' 17:30, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 20:14, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Lofgren

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

Non-noteworthy political figure known for one event, and sources solely reflect that one event. Thargor Orlando (talk) 01:39, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 03:50, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 03:50, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Probably notable as an author, even for a single book; it is in 813 libraries a/c Worldcat, and the article cites a review in Booklist; I'm checking for more. Single event does not apply in anuy case: h';e's notable for his political work, for the articlehe published, and for his book. DGG ( talk ) 05:44, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He's not greatly notable, but he's notable enough for a Wikipedia page according to our criteria. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 06:06, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: He has not been shown to be a notable author per WP:CREATIVE. I could care less about how many libraries his one book is in. Probably notable doesn't cut it. SL93 (talk) 02:15, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's not really an "event" that he's noted for -- he did not get embroiled in a one-off scandal or became a victim of a crime. He is notable because he spent his entire working life in the Republican Party, and then wrote a book denouncing their current strategy and tactics. The book, and the article that preceded it, got widespread coverage, and today Lofgren is quoted in the news media as an expert on the U.S. political process. He has been quoted on this topic for nearly two years now, most recently five days ago. Sue Gardner (talk) 22:28, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Where is this "widespread coverage" beyond the topic he's known for? More to the point, where was it covered much beyond unreliable sources like Truthout and Policymic? Thargor Orlando (talk) 00:02, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've added this to the article: "Since the publication of his book, Lofgren has been interviewed by the news media on issues such as "the death by self-infliction of the Republican Party,"[17][18] dysfunction in both U.S. major political parties[19][20][21] and Republican filibustering in the U.S. Senate.[22]" with citations to Bill Moyers, Eliot Spitzer on Current TV and Pacifica Radio. Sue Gardner (talk) 13:11, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 17:26, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. --BDD (talk) 21:42, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kidnapping of Hannah Anderson

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

A PROD not made by me was contested with the reasoning that "Deletion on the premise of "missing white woman syndrome" is horrifically racist and not basis for said deletion." However, that fails to establish my and others' main problem: this is a routine news story that was blown out of proportion due to missing white woman syndrome - WP:NOTNEWS applies. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 16:32, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, for reasons I gave in the PROD and on the article talk. If "missing white woman syndrome" sounds racist to anyone, feel free to personally disregard that part. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:37, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Really doesn't meet that definition if others were killed beforehand. Somewhat routine, but an interstate manhunt and the first state of California Amber Alert in the age of Wireless Emergency Alerts, and that she was taken by somebody she knew, not a random person makes this far more than a MWWS case by far. Nate • (chatter) 18:14, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the syndrome is just a magnifier (at least how I see it). Without the somewhat notable parts, there's nothing to magnify. Oddly enough, I was just informed on an unrelated YouTube video that of about 800,000 annually reported missing children, about 258,000 were abducted by non-strangers. 115 were taken by strangers. So that it wasn't a case of "Stranger Danger" just makes it more routine. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:21, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per Nate - somewhat routine, but first WEA Amber Alert in California, and rather unusual circumstances in the actual crime itself. Ansh666 18:27, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The alleged kidnapping and murder satisfy the parameters of WP:NOTABILITY. The media coverage is pretty substantial. It would be wrong bit to have an article on this event. JOJ Hutton 18:33, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Medium keep. I'd venture that over-coverage of crimes involving pretty white women (be they victims, suspects, or anything else) is the largest problem with modern media—or at least the problem that the least progress has been made on. If someone were to nominate Death of Caylee Anthony or Murder of Travis Alexander for deletion, part of me would be inclined to support (though I think I'd resist the urge). That's because those were stories where there was literally nothing that made them special, other than the fact that the cable news networks decided to pay attention to them. This case was a bit more complex: There was a major police operation that included an FBI officer killing somebody, and a widely disseminated AMBER alert. And, perhaps most importantly, the media's involvement in this case, if somewhat hysterical, can be argued to have had a legitimate ethical basis (namely raising public awareness, thereby helping to find her), unlike with Casey Anthony and Jodi Arias, where the stories were famous for being famous, and had no other newsworthiness. So, while I don't have too much of a problem with playing the "but why was there substantial coverage?" game, I think in this case there is a legitimate answer to that question. — PublicAmpers&(main account • talk • block) 19:41, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Reliable sources call the tune, and we dance to it. Not the other way around. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 20:34, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We follow the lead set by reliable sources - their editors decide whether a story is notable, not WP editors. We just follow their lead. --B2C 20:44, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but direct DiMaggio's name to 'Anderson Kidnapping and Murders'. I don't like to glorify criminals, but the circumstances of his crimes are noteworthy: particularly the Amber Alert going out over phones in California, and that the accused repeated a crime of his father's. tigerstripes (talk) 21:24, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Anderson kidnapping and murders (murders and kidnapping, maybe) seems best to me, if we keep it at all. Seems undue weight to focus on the one of five who survived. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:28, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support InedibleHulk's suggestion. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 21:56, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's Tigerstripes' suggestion, to be fair. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:42, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I second IH's support of TS' good idea! 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 18:03, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, I back your encouragement of the tiger endorsement, and the circle's complete. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:57, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that using the surname is probably the best. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 22:30, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'd say Anderson murders and kidnapping, to go in chronological order (though I'm not too sure that it matters). But yes, it should be renamed. Ansh666 19:04, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also in criminological order (that is, murder is more serious). InedibleHulk (talk) 22:45, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete There have been a large number of articles added covering crimes that have no lasting impact or national/global scope in spite of WP:EVENT. While kidnapping did cross multiple states, this kidnapping has not demonstrated that it will have any impact afterwards. At the risk of speculating, I would guess that this kidnapping won't have any lasting impact (beyond affecting the Amber Alert system) in the future. IMO, anything related to the Amber Alerts should go in the Amber Alerts article rather than here. Transcendence (talk) 23:30, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Has significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources, so technically satisfies WP:N. But we collectively decided that mere routine news events, or routine crimes, while they satisfy the news judgement of newsmedia editors seeking to maintain viewership/readership, are not automatically encyclopedic. This story rises above "routine crime" in that it allegedly included a double murder, by a family friend, followed by the first use of celphone statewide Amber alert, and concluded with a shootout killing the alleged badguy by the FBI and a rescue of the victim. Thus it has several elements which elevate it above the average murder or kidnapping, just as the kidnapping of the Cleveland trio, or the emergency landing of a plane by Chesley Sullenberger rise above similar but less encyclopedic events. Edison (talk) 01:14, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In addition to the widespread and reliably sourced coverage, it was a case of double murder (and the killing of a family dog), had unique significance in the use of the Amber Alert system, involved a protracted search by hundreds of volunteers, included a surprise appearance by four concerned citizens on horseback (one of whom was a retired sheriff), and culminated in an FBI shoot-out and the safe return of the kidnap victim to her father. New information indicates that the perpetrator's father once also held a 16 year old girl captive at gunpoint and that he, the father, committed suicide on the exact same date, 15 years earlier, that marked the perpetrator's death in this case. Certainly these elements will make this case memorable for years to come. 70.36.137.217 (talk) 02:16, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you're certain, you have a better memory than me! But yeah, it'll make a good TV movie, and TV movies are often looked back on for early roles of new stars. I'm almost tempted to change my mind to weak delete. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:52, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete per WP:NOTNEWS.William Jockusch (talk) 03:46, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep, as this goes beyond WP:NOTNEWS for the following reasons. A) It involved much more than a simple kidnapping, but also involves murder and arson, not a routine combination. B) It was the top headline on national websites (CNN) and radio (CBS Radio) across multiple days (I can't confirm television, as I don't watch much, and does NOR apply to AfD debates? <grin>) C) The incident is used in analysis of the Amber Alert system in general. See [19] under heading "Why Hannah's case was unusual". Although it certainly must be acknowledged that the incident predicates the discussion, but it appears likely this incident will become part of the long-term dialogue regarding Amber Alert. For what it's worth, I think this incident also goes beyond MWWS, as when the story first became front-page material the ethnicity was not established, and Ethan's body had not been discovered so the initial Amber alerts included two individuals. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 21:54, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom. Alex (talk) 01:20, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Can't imagine how anybody would oppose the presence of this page. It is a very notable and infamous kidnapping and murder case, and it has received national and international news coverage for nearly two weeks, and will receive more coverage for a long time afterward. Not to mention, it's all described as an "unusual case" by many people, including law enforcement. Cyanidethistles (talk) 02:38, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep I slightly agree with above. smileguy91talk 04:33, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete as totally tragic that this story is, there is no encyclopaedic analyse of the event in the article, no attempt to demonstrate any lasting significance to this crime, it is just a news story and as such has no place here by policy, is should be over at Wikinews. LGA talkedits 09:18, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep To dismiss this story as 'routine news' blown out of proportion is incredibly naive -- yes, kidnappings happen, but they rarely result in massive manhunts and FBI agents immediately getting involved. Lots of less remarkable, actually routine crimes have their own wikipedia pages simply because of the ensuing media circus. Why target one of the few pages which is actually notable? I am the radiohead (talk) 15:15, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment FYI, the name of the article is also up for discussion, see Talk:Kidnapping of Hannah Anderson -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 14:13, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This case involved the Amber Alert system in multiple states, which is highly unusual. It was also the first time, California used their new statewide cellphone alert notification system. It's also a case where a victim who was not abducted due to a custody battle was rescued. The case is still in the national media almost two weeks later, as more information is continuing to come out. Now, there's discussion about Hannah's use of social media so soon after she was rescued. The events of this case are not what I would consider routine at all. Laladoodle92 (talk) 15:36, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As creator, I believe this is an event that will probably be made into a Lifetime movie (mentioned above). Significant coverage suffices notability guidelines. Tinton5 (talk) 03:33, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - A widely covered story that's still developing. And it doesn't fit the "missing white woman" stereotype. Too many odd and unique facets to the story. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:05, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Ample and ongoing coverage in numerous nationwide reliable and verifiable sources. The efforts to trivialize this case and justify deletion based on a supposed "missing white woman syndrome" are both utterly disturbing and completely irrelevant. Our job is not to judge the reasons for coverage in reliable sources; but to determine that it is being covered in these sources. Alansohn (talk) 04:34, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete, This may not even have been a kidnapping, extremely premature to have such a page asserting "kidnapping" until investigations are completed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.186.134.231 (talk) 04:45, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This one is pretty obvious guys (and gals). It's still a national story and clearly meets the notability guidelines and you want to delete the article? I just don't understand. Rreagan007 (talk) 14:48, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep extensively covered in national news, a multi state incident involving alleged kidnapping, torture, multiple murder and arson, and fear of IED's. Its not our problem if the media gave it too much attention.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:00, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete Again, per WP:NOTNEWS PrairieKid (talk) 21:25, 16 August 2013 (UTC) Merge into Amber Alert, which already has Amber's case. Most of the reasons to keep don't have to do with the case, but more with the Amber Alert System anyway. PrairieKid (talk) 21:31, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Clearly notable. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:01, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP It is a notable story as it is receiving coverage in newspapers from all over the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 15.219.169.71 (talk) 22:20, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There's no evidence of long-term effects of this event, failing NOTNEWS and NEVENT. This is type of story Wikinews is prime for, and mention in Amber Alert can point to that, but it is not an encyclopedic topic. Note: broad international coverage does not equate to notability, we are looking for the long-tail in sources, not a burst of broad coverage. --MASEM (t) 22:59, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your argument is bogus. You can't possibly know how this story is going to turn out. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:21, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • And that's a reason to not have created the article in the first place, per NEVENT. Event articles should only be created once the event is shown to be long-term notable. While there is google news hits about the event, they remain recaps and primary sourcing and very little about effects that the event will have on the future. This is why if people want to create articles on current events, start at Wikinews, and we can transwiki in when the event proves notable. --MASEM (t) 00:58, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • That argument is equally bogus. You have no way to know anything about it long-term. Six months from now, if it has come to nothing, you could ask for it to be deleted. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→
  • Keep This is similar to the attempt to delete Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fuaed Abdo Ahmed. Every time there is a crime with national and international coverage that is every bit as serious as a terrorist attack, there are numerous attempts to call it non-notable and delete it if it has "no lasting effect". It almost seems that the number of people who try to delete such articles could be part of a deliberate disinformation effort as part of a planned and coordinated attack staged to look like a non-notable crime. In the case of Ahmed, it was a young man with parents from Yemen who had made recent trips to Dubai and Yemen with indications he "liked" Islam, hostage taking and attacking tanks on his facebook page. Redhanker (talk) 23:35, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also don't forget that millions of people eat chicken eggs every morning. Doesn't mean it's a deliberate and coordinated attack on chickens (at least not by the consumers). Just a matter of common interests/disinterests. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:04, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, and millions of people, after that routine breakfast, kidnap a family from their home, bring them to their own home, torture and kill the victims, torch their own house, and then drive a thousand miles with one of the victims, and get gunned down by police. Yep, it happens millions of times every day. Nothing special about it. It gets a lot of news coverage, but wikipedians are smarter than national news reporters. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:37, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You've missed the point. That was a response to Redhanker's theory of a deletionist conspiracy, nothing to do with the murders. Many people independently eat eggs, many propose questionable articles for deletion. Murder and kidnapping is also routine, but not to an egg breakfast extent. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:14, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, you have missed the point. There's not an overt "conspiracy" as Redhanker alleges, but there is mostly definitely a zealous effort, by some, to impose a pedantic, narrow-minded viewpoint on Wikipedia, that effort being considered somehow more important than the fact it makes Wikipedia look stupid. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:44, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This event may very well stay in the news for a while. SOXROX (talk) 02:51, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article has gotten 47791 hits thus far in under a week. People like me come to Wikipedia for information. You get updated and more accurate and detailed information about anything in the news. This gets reliable coverage. There are more than 2,100 children a day reported missing in America alone. The news media chooses which ones to give coverage to, based on what ratings they can milk out of it. This case, like others of its kind, will continue to get coverage for awhile now. Dream Focus 09:48, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Use Wikinews then, which is specifically set up to provide wiki-style news reporting. We're an encyclopedia, and there's no evidence this event will have any influence in the future. --MASEM (t) 16:56, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • We don't have evidence anything will be of any influence in the future. You think anyone will remember most of the famous people we have today, or most of the kings of the past, or the majority of films, books, comics, games, and whatnot that have articles? And no one uses wikinews, ever, never have and never will. Wikipedia is not paper, we're not running out of space, so no reason to have things that bring people here in droves. Nothing gained by deleting this. Dream Focus 17:04, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • It is an encyclopedia and there are limits to what is appropriate to include, NOTNEWS stands as one of those. People will read Wikinews once editors actually start using it for what's not appropriate for an encyclopedia, where issues like notability don't get involved in article creation. --MASEM (t) 18:26, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per WP:NOTNEWS. Encyclopedic long-term notability has not been established.LM2000 (talk) 04:26, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - reached both national and international coverage. --BabbaQ (talk) 10:13, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:29, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Colin Maguire

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. Only claims of notability are winning an online story contest and having some short stories in non-notable publications. Furthermore, the article has no reliable sources, with 8 out of the 11 references being pages on Amazon.com. Hirolovesswords (talk) 17:11, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - He has no coverage in independent reliable sources that I could find. The body of work seems to be a bunch of short stories that have been included in some collections through small press, or in low circulation magazines, but there's no literary criticism about these works that I could find. -- Whpq (talk) 17:44, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as lacking in-depth coverage in reliable independent sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:44, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Sean Hayes (actor). (non-admin closure) -- Trevj (talk) 09:35, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hazy Mills Productions

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

There is no doubt that this organisation has produced some notable TV shows but notability is not inherited. The organisation itself does not seem to meet the general notability guideline and the article does not establish notability. AussieLegend (✉) 09:45, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as creator, per WP:IAR. The rules are pretty self-evidently flawed if a TV company with 5 US TV shows on the air(!), including 3 on NBC, isn't considered notable. Alternatively, merge with Sean Hayes, which would achieve nothing other than making Wikipedia harder to navigate for end-users, but would allow the exact same content to continue to exist uncontroversially while working around notability rules because, while Wikipedia is WP:NOTPAPER, there is a strange double standard in notability requirements between pages and page sections. -Halo (talk) 13:02, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 16:36, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and Merge somewhere, probably to Sean Hayes. The company gets a ton of mentions[21] and occasional significant coverage.[22] Almost all of the mentions name Todd Milliner, Sean Hayes' partner in the venture, but he does not seem to have a Wikipedia article of his own; maybe he should. In any case this production company gets way too many independent mentions to be deleted, if a redirect is possible. --MelanieN (talk) 21:17, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I added several references to the article to see if I could get it up to notability, but I still don't think it makes it. However, the material should be merged somewhere else. If the result is delete, maybe it could be userfied to User:Halo so that the material isn't lost. --MelanieN (talk) 22:42, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus, and therefore defaulting to keep. Reasonable arguments on both sides and further relisting seems unlikely to help. Kubigula (talk) 22:11, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New York Sun Works

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

A promotional article about a relatively minor group doing relatively minor local events. DGG ( talk ) 04:25, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:21, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:22, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New York Sun Work dedicates to the sciences education which is extraordinary special. The info about the organization would be helpful and useful for audience who want to know the hydroponic and sustainability education in public school. Roger0206 (talk) 14:59, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Each one of the projects may be small, but there are a number of them, and they have received coverage in the media, which I believe is the important thing for notability. If the text is too promotional, let's just edit it. —Anne Delong (talk) 03:10, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 04:00, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As with this AFD, which is for a project of this group, this organization meets notability guidelines. This New York Sun Works has plenty of coverage in consideration to the size of the organization and it's projects. Coverage from so many reliable sources merits this article. Local events by local groups can be notable and have reliable sourcing to confirm their worth, being small and local does not automatically exclude the possibility of meeting our policies and guidelines. Judicatus | Talk 08:23, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking broad WP:SIGCOV outside New York classrooms. Appears to be a promotional or advocacy piece and fails WP:NPOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blue Riband (talk • contribs) 22:49, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 16:18, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 20:16, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! I Did It Again: The Best of Britney Spears

edit
Oops! I Did It Again: The Best of Britney Spears (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable album. Barring sources that verify the album's existence/release dates in various territories, there are only three sources here that discuss it in detail - one of which cites the LiveJournal community Oh No They Didn't as a source. –Chase (talk / contribs) 16:19, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The article clearly passes WP:GNG. It doesn't have hundreds of sources regarding it, but it has several reliable ones that have a good amount of information. I'm sure I can also find a few more to add to the article as well. — Status (talk · contribs) 19:25, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 20:02, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The information from Live Journal appears in the Idolator [23] story. It looks to me as though only the track listing came from Live Journal; I don't think that invalidates this source. I searched but didn't find additional reliable sources. —rybec 00:40, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 20:02, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Per Status' reasoning. Arre 04:53, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge / redirect to Britney Spears discography. Despite Status' assertion that this meets WP:GNG, I have to disagree. Amazon generally cannot be used as a source to prove notability, and the other sources denote little more than a paragraph, which I'm surprised at for a compilation of someone with major commercial success. No hits on a news or book search, and a web search brings back either the existing sources or fan / self-published sites. No evidence of chart placing either. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:38, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nobody has cited Amazon as being why it's notable... it's been the subject of several articles by reliable sources. As I said, there doesn't have to be thousands to establish notability. — Status (talk · contribs) 23:14, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's been mentioned in reliable sources, sure, but I don't think the coverage is significant enough for someone of Britney Spears' stature. I'd expect coverage in Billboard chart placings, and maybe an article in the New York Times culture section that showed how she was going to show Lady Gaga how female pop is really done ... anyway, you get my drift. Not significant coverage, I'm afraid. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:39, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 16:16, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • IAR keep per Dralwik. The article emphasises the obscurity of this recording, to the point that I wonder whether Ms. Spears is aware of it. But giving a little leeway for the sake of completeness is reasonable. —rybec 22:38, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see where you're coming from, but the problem with your approach is that it gives people leeway to add bootlegs in the interest of "completeness". Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:55, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote carelessly; I meant to advocate for an exception, not anarchy. If this were an article about a bootleg recording which had received coverage on Allmusic, Yahoo Music and Idolator, yes, I might say the same thing. Because bootlegs are often illegitimate, they aren't promoted and receive little press. Because bootlegs are often traded surreptitiously, a skeptical reader can't go to a shop or library to confirm the track listing or other details. When I wrote "IAR" I was being a bit sloppy: what I really meant was that the sources for this article, while adequate for WP:V, are marginal for WP:N, and that for the reason that Dralwik mentioned I advocate bending the one rule of notability this time. I thought it would be obvious that I don't advocate ignoring all the rules, all the time, such that there should be articles about every recording. —rybec 15:47, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone back through the article and done a thorough look for sources, and come up with one more. I think there's just about enough now to tip it over the edge of WP:GNG, so I'm switching to Keep. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:10, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:29, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

University of Birmingham Liberal Democrats

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

Society has not established notability OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 16:11, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 16:15, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 16:15, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 16:15, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 16:16, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:30, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ardnore Residential Area

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

Delete: An orphaned article about a residential area, tagged for 18 months but no improvement or attempt to fix any of the issues. Nothing encyclopaedic to be read here. I can't find even one WP:RS to verify its notability. Certainly not a NPOV. ww2censor (talk) 15:41, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 15:50, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Per WP:SK#1: nominator urges merging, not deletion (and see Wikipedia:Merge and delete on why "deleted and merged" is such a problematic outcome to request). Please attempt to deal with merging through normal editing and discussion, per WP:ATD. postdlf (talk) 15:53, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of Muhammad Asad's life

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

This article should be deleted and merged to: Muhammad Asad. Vanjagenije (talk) 15:01, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 15:07, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 15:08, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 15:08, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 15:08, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 15:09, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 15:09, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:30, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I Need You (The Who song)

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

This article does not fulfill criteria given in wp:NSONG. There are no reliable sources, and most of the article is about the album, not about the song. Vanjagenije (talk) 14:45, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 15:06, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 21:48, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of people who have beaten José Raúl Capablanca in chess

edit
List of people who have beaten José Raúl Capablanca in chess (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This was included in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people who have beaten Paul Morphy in chess but survived because it was not properly tagged. The reasoning remains the same: losing in chess is commonplace, even at the highest level, and therefore beating someone once is not notable. Mangoe (talk) 13:30, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:59, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:59, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - it didn't only "survive because it was not properly tagged", it also survived because it was the only one with a valid source discussing Capablanca's losses as a set, therefore passing (if only barely) WP:GNG/WP:LISTN. Ansh666 18:10, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what the closing admin said. Mangoe (talk) 13:39, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:30, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AGM-30 engine

edit
AGM-30 engine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD (tag removed with no edit summary), non-notable model aircraft engine, one of thousands. Article appears to be an advert for the product, sole editor appears to be a single-purpose account. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 13:18, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 14:01, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 14:04, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to J.G. Quintel. LFaraone 01:26, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2 in the AM PM

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

Notability has not been established and the only sources I seem to find are various blogs and video websites Difficultly north (talk) - Simply south alt. 13:15, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 14:05, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 14:05, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as a copyright violation. As noted the source does not claim to be released under a free licence. Hut 8.5 10:25, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pjsip

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

It is not 100% clear that this is a copyright violation because the site's note at the foot of http://www.pjsip.org/ mentions Creative Commons. However it mentions it for some icons, and does not appear to do so for the text. The wording is definitely identical. Instead of CSD I have brought it to AfD to give people the chance to consider the matter.

Of course there is also the issue of notability which may trump copyright by the entity not being notable anyway Fiddle Faddle 12:58, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 14:10, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 14:10, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:30, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Linda Thorén

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

Does not include any references or sources to establish notability. Even if a source can be found to verify the 1997 "International Starlet of the Year" award at the Barcelona International Erotic Film Festival, I believe that it is not sufficient to satisfy WP:PORNBIO Finnegas (talk) 12:18, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Finnegas (talk) 12:44, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Finnegas (talk) 12:44, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Finnegas (talk) 12:46, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. LFaraone 01:27, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Egyptian Tank Man

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

I created that page, and thought that this was a notable event, however, I realize now that this was one of do many events that occurred during the revolution, and it is not significant enough to be in an article on Wikipedia. Ahmad E Shahin (talk) 09:57, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 10:36, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 10:36, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 10:37, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wrong forum  The nomination states that this is a part of the "Egyptian Revolution" "revolution", meaning [Egyptian Revolution of 2011].  There are no content concerns here, such as this being a hoax or WP:OR.  Reliable sources and a picture exist that are subject to WP:ATD policy.  There is nothing unusual here that would lead to a deletion under WP:IAR.  As per WP:SK, and with no theoretical case for deletion, this discussion can be moved to the talk page.  Unscintillating (talk) 11:54, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The nomination says it isnt a notable event. Thats a cause for deletion. A cause that is supposed to discussed at AFD, meaning this forum. nableezy - 19:07, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Seems straightforward as a case for which there is no theoretical deletion for notability, but upon review, the vehicle is not a tank, and where is the source that is being used as a reference for the title of the article?  Unscintillating (talk) 20:12, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non-notable event. The pic could go in the main article, along with a single sentence about it (though the youtube video is better than the pic) nableezy - 19:07, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:Notability is a guideline to decide if a topic is worthy of having a standalone article.  wp:notability is not determined by Wikipedia articles, but by the world at large.  Topics that are not notable but are already covered in the encyclopedia, or can be added to a notable topic, are not subject to deletion for notability.  Deletion, on the other hand, is always a content deletion, even if the word "notability" is substituted.  AfD is for worthless articles, not those where the worst theoretical case is to redirect without deletion.  Such a result is non-binding out of AfD, even when it is the consensus.  So how do you figure that this is the correct venue for a notability discussion on this topic?  Unscintillating (talk) 23:51, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personally, I think a redirect from Egyptian tank man to say Egyptian Revolution would be slightly disorienting and off-putting. If I had to choose between merge/redirect and delete, I'd choose delete because a merge may be WP:UNDUE and redirect as I said above is a non-obvious target. Also, you said, "Topics that are not notable but are already covered in the encyclopedia, or can be added to a notable topic, are not subject to deletion for notability." Who decides this? Community consensus. If someone wants to delete the article for whatever reason, as was the case here, AfD is the place to get such consensus. You are stating your personal opinion as if it were fact, which may or may not be true depending on what the participants in this discussion determine. Ansh666 03:49, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is an interesting argument involving the WP:UNDUE.  The problem is, that the encyclopedia is not yet done, so with that argument it is not yet possible to know that this material wouldn't be needed.  Once it is deleted, there is no guarantee that it will be retained on the servers.  Regards, Unscintillating (talk) 01:14, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stong Delete - To compare this photo to the iconic Tennemann Tank Man is ridiculous. For a single image to be notable, it must be universally recognised: such as the Buzz Aldrin's Man On The Moon photo, Vietnam Napalm Girl, UMSC Flag Raising, 9/11 Flag Raising, Hindenburg Disaster, VJ Day Sailor Kissing Nurse, Atomic Bomb, Afghan girl, Vulture Waiting To Eat Ethiopian Child, etc. These photos do not require explanations and do not need to be justified. As for this Egyptian Tank Man photo, I have never seen it before today. And, the only reason I clicked on this page was by accident. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RAF910 (talk • contribs) 13:54, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move  without keeping the redirect.  There is already an alternate name listed in the article, to which I just added the question mark.  This name is "Egypt's Tiananmen Square moment?"  WP:FRINGE states, "Wikipedia is not and must not become the validating source for non-significant subjects."  I added a book citation to the article.  Unscintillating (talk) 12:23, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 09:48, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete there is nothing gon this article but a western media comparison. Seems FRINGE and not notable. The media are often hungry for sound/poic bytesLihaas (talk) 11:59, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:26, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Troy Boyle

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

Yes, I know, this unsourced BLP has been around since 2007. But why it has is beyond me. He currently "works on pinups and covers" and used to be a comic book artist. But I can't find a single article on this person in Google News, except for one in USA Today that refers to his presidency of the non-notable National Atheist Party, and says that he is "a corporate legal representative for a finance company," not a comic book artist, which is the only conceivable claim this person has to notability. See [24], the article itself is not accessible. This looks suspiciously like an autobiography, as it was created by an SPA, and should be speedily deleted unless someone can come up with evidence that this person has received signficant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources as required in WP:GNG. Coretheapple (talk) 23:07, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The article contained a copyright issue was grossly inaccurate, not stating that he was no longer a "comic book artist" and that he was currently working for Americorps as a paralegal and attending law school. I've rectified these issues, and it is now sourced principally to his own personal profile on his own website. Obviously that's impermissable, but I think it is necessary to do so while this AfD is running. Coretheapple (talk) 13:12, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He received significant coverage in Christian Century. Though the political party is small and new, it is legally registered with the IRS, and claims thousands of members in all 50 U.S. states. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:09, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's the USA Today article I cited above, and as I pointed out it contradicts the claim that this person is a notable comic books artist, or even not a notable one, by giving him a different occupation ("corporate legal representative") than the one cited in this article ("artist"). It seems to me that in the six years that this article has been on Wikipedia, if there were reliable sources for the article's primary claims, they'd be there by now, especially since this is probably an autobiography. If this isn't an autobiography, then I would suggest that this may be a different Troy Boyle.Coretheapple (talk) 05:13, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a case of different people with the same name. Boyle is mentioned in many books on atheism and comic book art that show up in a Google search, though text of those books is not available so I can't tell how substantive the coverage is. Primary sources unacceptable for establishing notability but presumably accurate, such as his profile on the political party website, make it clear that he is a comic book artist who also has an undergraduate degree in the legal field, and is now enrolled in law school. People can have more than one career, and the fact that one reliable source mentions one career does not undermine any claims about the other career. I admit that this is a close call and wish that we had more reliable source coverage readily visible online, but I do see evidence that offline sources exist. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:48, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Close call? You have to be kidding. What "many books"? Name a few. And this article is grossly inaccurate. See his self-written profile at [25]. He is a law student and "paralegal with 11 years of experience." He also says that he "was also a professional comic book artist," and that "Most of my work in comics was with pin-ups and cover art only." None of these facts are actually in the article, which is understandable given that it is probably an autobiography and undermines the basis of having this article. So the bottom line is that contrary to what it says in this article, he is a former comic book artist who now works as a paralegal and attends law school, and founded a so-called political party that seems to have garnered one article. There is clearly no basis for an article based on the past atheist affiliation. Can you please link to the multiple reliable secondary sources, independent of the subject, that substantiate this person's notability as a comic book artist? Coretheapple (talk) 06:02, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've tagged for disputed factual accuracy, and also for a close paraphrase issue. Coretheapple (talk) 06:14, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just because the article as originally written claimed notability as a comic book artist does not mean that he could not later gain notability as an atheist political activist. It is likely that I would have agreed with deletion if the article had been nominated before publication of the USA Today/ Christian Century article. But we are discussing it after that publication. A Wikipedia biography can cover many verifiable aspects of a person's life, not just the accomplishment that makes them notable. So even if he is not notable specifically as a comic book artist, I see no reason why that can't be mentioned. I have already conceded that I see this as a borderline case, and see your recommendation to delete as perfectly reasonable although I am not quite persuaded. So, let's allow the debate to be played out, and see if any other reliable sources emerge. As for the "autobiography" issue, your suspicions are reasonable but unproven, and in any case, that is not a definitive reason to delete an article. Shortcomings in the current version of the article can be addressed through normal editing. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:28, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here's some coverage from National Review Online that says "Boyle, who was apparently completing law school and writing a comic-book series while running the party, will now have more time to focus on his 'two careers of Law and Comics,' and a new job with the Department of Homeland Security." . As for books, 2008 Artist's & Graphic Designer's Market, The Slings & Arrows Comic Guide, and Kirby: King of Comics. As stated earlier, I can't see the text of the books but they clearly mention Boyle as a comic book artist. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:02, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Mentions don't matter. The references to his comic book work are clearly incidental and not "significant coverage" as required by WP:GNG, and the same is true of the article and blog post about the non-notable atheist group. Let's be clear that this is a former activist and comic book artist. He is a current paralegal and law student, now working as a Community Outreach Counselor for AmeriCorps.[26] It's important not to rely upon this inaccurate article for information on this person. Coretheapple (talk) 14:24, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:36, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:38, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:47, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 09:09, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. LFaraone 01:27, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dark_Domination

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

This page should be deleted, because it is a self-advertisement from the band. Considering that they have played inly two gigs in their country, no one knows so much details about music instruments and equipment they use. Also, information about albums is not neutral. For instance, Let Satan Speak Through Our Lips had ambient noise fill-ins in total of 20 minutes only to be qualified as full-length release, prooflink: http://www.metal-archives.com/reviews/Dark_Domination/Let_Satan_Speak_Through_Our_Lips/74105/

Links don't work. Only two are OK. The one with the frontman interview and the one about burning books, that has no connections with the band. There are no objective links that can proove the band's statements.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 11:14, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 11:14, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:30, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vladimir Drozdoff

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

Unsourced and notability is far from clear. Google shows very little except wiki mirrors and the subject's facebook page (astounding since he died in 1960). Anyway, fails GNG and N. Spartaz Humbug! 06:59, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 11:12, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 11:12, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 11:12, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 11:12, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • leaning delete He does show some traces in the literature; the problem is that I don't think there's enough to construct a biography from with out doing a great deal of OR. I certainly didn't find the information that is in the article now. Mangoe (talk) 13:53, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as lacking reliable independent sources with in-depth coverage. If such sources get added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:00, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. LFaraone 01:27, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vladimir Dikanski

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

Only source is IMDB and a quick google search failed to provide anything other than social media. Appears to fail GNG/N and BLP requires at least one proper source. Spartaz Humbug! 06:32, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 11:11, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 11:11, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 11:11, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:26, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Balfe

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

Not notable. I found one very short news story on nymag.com basically poking fun at him, and a couple of other mentions. But nothing that counts as in-depth coverage. I don't think Mercury Radio Arts is notable either (at the time of writing it's at AfD), so a merge there doesn't make sense. Colapeninsula (talk) 13:38, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:59, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:59, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*Let's talk!* 05:32, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 06:17, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If there was an article for Mercury Radio Arts, I'd recommend a redirect there. However that doesn't seem to have an actual article and I don't think that it's entirely appropriate to redirect to TheBlaze or to Glen Beck's article. If someone wants to create an article for MRA, I have no problem with this redirecting there. However as far as Balfe's notability goes, he has none outside of MRA. Everything I found was in relation to Beck or to MRA, none of which went into him in-depth. Other than the 40 Under 40 nod and a few trivial sources mentioning he became COO and president of MRA, there's nothing out there- certainly not enough for an article at this time. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:00, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 21:54, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unified conferencing

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

Pure Original research. Fiddle Faddle 13:18, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:34, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:36, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep or blow it up - there's plenty of coverage of the "concept" itself and unified conferencing has been around as part of the telecommuting debate since the early 2000s and has probably (based on my own quick search) now risen to the level of notability required for inclusion here. However, the article in question is almost entirely original research, as highlighted by the nom. Sure, we could probably find sources for some of what is there but I'd suggest it might be easier to start from scratch. Stalwart111 14:12, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*Let's talk!* 05:33, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 06:16, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:28, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RoundMenu

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

The list of references, the ones I've sampled, are all press release material. This is an internet startup, with a welter of PR, but no solid notability. The long list of pseudo-references persuaded me against Speedy Deletion as a non notable entity, but it probably does qualify for that route. Fiddle Faddle 11:42, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 11:50, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 11:50, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*Let's talk!* 05:34, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 06:15, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:28, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ray Panthaki

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

one big piece of puffery and promo. Panthaki seems to fail wp:GNG as there are remarkable few Google hits for such a great guy who "swiftly went on to work with respected directors" and "After this run of theatre success, Panthaki then continued to cleverly balance the edgy Film roles with more mainstream commercial material." The Banner talk 00:49, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:55, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:55, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*Let's talk!* 05:40, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 06:11, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 04:50, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Glass Eye

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Koala15 (talk) 15:33, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 16:04, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 16:05, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*Let's talk!* 05:28, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 06:11, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:39, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gliese 546

edit
Gliese 546 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't seem to meet WP:NASTRO. Although there are a fair number of hits on SIMBAD, none of them that I saw appear to actually study the star in question. StringTheory11 (t • c) 15:39, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 15:49, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*Let's talk!* 05:29, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 06:10, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:17, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of species rumored/believed to still be alive

edit
List of species rumored/believed to still be alive (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

List based off of blog sources like this one that are terrifically unreliable. I don't consider this to be a plausible list name nor a plausible redirect to existing similar topics like Critically Endangered. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 06:09, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A list of species that have possibly survived to modern times would be an interesting list to create. I added only the best references to the animals and found many more out there for each.jbignell (talk) 06:14, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 11:08, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Allow me to have a say so in this as I am the one who started the article! I have found many books as sources that I am citing on that article right now. Here is one of them! [1]
  1. ^ Jonathan Maberry, ‎David F. Kramer (2007) The Cryptopedia: A Dictionary of the Weird, Strange & Downright ... - Page 29
Please give this article a chance! This is a great article and it is my first article! C'mon everyone! This I have listed several reliable and credible sources. Book sources. Go to the article right now and you will see them. This article won't dissapoint anyone. Trust me on this! :) Keeby101 (talk) 16:55, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
One more thing I forgot to add, how do I link the sources? You know, make it to where people can go to the sources that you are referring to? Keeby101 (talk) 16:55, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, of course, it's an implausible redirect. My thinking cap must have blown off and tumbled down the street. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:31, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am sorry, but this article of mine is supposed to take these species rumored of being alive to a much more serious level. It is supposed to take a more serious note on these particular species. If we decide to redirect this article to List of cryptids, then I am sorry but no one will take these species that I listed seriously. Besides, List of cryptids has legendary creatures, creatures that have been hoaxes and species that are just improbable such as the Aswang, Emela-ntouka and the Gnome of Gerona which has been proposed by scientists to be a goblin. Goblins do not exist! I could go on for hours why redirecting this article to List of cryptids is absurd, ludicrous and outright redundant. I was about to put the Ivory-Billed and Imperial-Woodpeckers on the article as we speak, but I could not let this redirecting to List of cryptids go unresponded. Little to no one takes cryptids seriously and if you see the list and can clearly see why. If it didn't have mythical creatures and stuff like the flying rods, then it would be taken more seriously. This article of mine is supposed to take these animals possible being alive to a very serious level whereas List of cryptids does not. Keeby101 (talk) 17:40, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hey! Why did you all go ahead and do that? I proposed to keep and you crossed it out? Look, I didn't mean to sound rude there, but I was just trying to make a point. The article has been improved btw. I am adding more and more species as we discuss this. Cheers! Also, if what I am doing is classified as spamming then I do not mean to do so ok. Keeby101 (talk) 18:15, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your second keep was struck because you already supported keeping the article in your above comment. You can respond to other comments, but avoid repeating putting your decision about keeping, deleting, etc. once you've said so already. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 18:18, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I both agree and disagree with SL93. I disagree with deleting the article, but I do agree that redirecting the article to List of cryptids is absurd and won't do anything expect get us all back to square one. No one take cryptids seriously! Besides, this article is leaning toward articles like this: List_of_critically_endangered_species like how it is supposed so. Basically, once I am finished creating my article, it will fit be part of this Conservation_status. The article itself is meant to be an offshoot of those articles within that template. Most likely an offshoot of the Data_Deficient and/or the Not Evaluated lists. See what I am aiming for now? Keeby101 (talk) 20:21, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Except that's not what it is. These animals are all either classified as "extinct" or "critically endangered". You're just creating a wholly unnecessary fork of List of cryptids, List of critically endangered species, and List of extinct animals, and maybe more. Ansh666 21:01, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not exaclty! Right now it looks like a fork of all of those articles, but if you are give the article time to grow and blossom you will see that it will a fork of none of them. Believe me on this. It is indeed necessary as there are so many species that yes are classified as extinct and critically endangered, but a lot of those species that are classified under those categories are rumored/believed to still be out there. That is what this article is taking about. Not creatures that have not been discovered yet like cryptids and not extinct or critically endangered species. This is talking about species that could still be out there. A prime example would be the Megaladon as it has gotten mass media attention and many people around the world believe that it is still alive off the coast of Africa. Keeby101 (talk) 21:20, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing you can do will prevent it from being a fork. That simply means that the content is already on Wikipedia, just in other places. There's no need to create yet another article to house all of these. Ansh666 21:41, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Besides being an obvious POV fork, this is just another "list" article made up of personal blogs[28][29], opinions(ie. deadlinks) or no sources at all(ie. Glaucous Macaw). No, this is not how you create an article! --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:30, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? Dead links? I have been trying to fix that just FYI and I have been putting in numerous sources for these animals. As I have said before and you can look on my talk page on this or even my user home page and it shows that I am very busy in real life. So if you were to help contribute to the article and cite actual book sources like how I have then it will no longer be look like a fork of other articles. I am not the one who put those blog sources on there. I only put book sources on my article. Other people have been contributing so they could very well be the ones who put up those blog sources. Keeby101 (talk) 05:50, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This is a very interesting and long needed topic. Its cited. And describing rumors that are cited is not taboo on Wikipedia. Seems to work on other articles, why not this one?--JOJ Hutton 12:58, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No verifiable method of giving reliable references. May be misleading, as we frequently have found species thought to be extinct alive, and have no way of knowing when others become extinct. Would make the list pure speculation. Caffeyw (talk) 10:09, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add a few things. Recently I have added many more sources. Great books, but unfortunately for this article. Books aren't exactly going to work. I need newspaper sources as well as sources from news websites and/or science news websites to pull this off. Sources like the HistoryChannel.com, ScienceChannel.com, Yahoo Science, Yahoo News, NationalGeographic.com, etc at this point are the only sources that I will be able to truly rely on. Even sources such as Fox News, CBS, ABC, NBC and CNN would do far greater than any book. Because the sources that I listed get all of the recent information about these particular species that I have listed in this article. If you don't believe me? Here is one of them: http://tv.yahoo.com/blogs/tv-news/megalodon--is-it-possible-that-this-nearly-67-foot-shark-still-exists-off-the-coast-of-south-africa--213827765.html . Regards Keeby101 (talk) 21:50, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to George_Watson's_College#George_Watson.27s_College_Pipes_and_Drums. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:38, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

George Watson's College Pipes and Drums

edit
George Watson's College Pipes and Drums (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

School pipe band - policy seems to be that only Grade 1 bands are notable. Jamesx12345 15:37, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 15:46, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 15:47, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*Let's talk!* 05:30, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 06:09, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 21:55, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Burlington Creek

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

I see no indication of notability in this mixed use development, consisting mainly of a list of mostly non-notable vendors. There appear to be no major anchors. DGG ( talk ) 00:28, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 02:23, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 02:26, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 06:03, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 21:55, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kokopelli & Company

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

A non-notable comic in a barely notable magazine. There is nothing on any website about this except for the Muse magazine website, forums, and WP mirrors. King Jakob C2 00:40, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 02:28, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 02:29, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 06:02, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:37, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Haris Abdagić

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

Delete, unable to find sources to show that this artist pass WP:BAND or gng. If we can show reliable sources that the individual passes those in the language I am not opposed to withdrawing but for now I believe it doesn't pass gng. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 01:53, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 02:44, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bosnia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 02:44, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I have searched, and failed to find any evidence of notability. He appears on YouTube, FaceBook, Twitter, SlideShare, etc etc, and on various publicity sites, but there seems to be no significant coverage in reliable independent sources. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:46, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(This article has already been deleted at least five times under several different titles. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:54, 5 August 2013 (UTC))[reply]
Five? I see two deleted revisions there, where's the rest? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:11, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not really hard to find them. A quick glance at the deleted contributions of the creator of the current article will give you immediate links to Haris Abdagic, which has been deleted 3 times, Haris Abdagić once, and Haris abdagić, once. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:27, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 06:01, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 21:58, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Kusmierz

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

No notability--ceo of non notable company, in the immediately adjacent AfD DGG ( talk ) 02:29, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 02:54, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 02:55, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 02:56, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 05:59, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to List of stars in Aquarius. LFaraone 01:28, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gliese 884

edit
Gliese 884 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't seem to meet WP:NASTRO StringTheory11 (t • c) 03:39, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 06:13, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 05:58, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to List of stars in Aquarius. LFaraone 01:28, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gliese 898

edit
Gliese 898 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't seem to meet WP:NASTRO. StringTheory11 (t • c) 03:41, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 06:13, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 05:57, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to List of stars in Indus. LFaraone 01:28, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gliese 902

edit
Gliese 902 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't seem to meet WP:NASTRO. StringTheory11 (t • c) 03:42, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 06:13, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 05:56, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR Mark Arsten (talk) 03:08, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

EU Jacksonville

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

Contested PROD : Un-sourced, cant find anything to verify any claims made as to being North Florida's largest and oldest free monthly entertainment publication. As it stands fails the WP:V policy. LGA talkedits 04:03, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:24, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've rewritten it with a few sources from other publications. As WP:NMEDIA says, media rarely reports on its competition, so perhaps some leeway should be given when sources do exist. This is just a blurb about the publication, but this contains far more info from the Florida Times-Union. There may be more; I'll see if I can dig something up. Currently, I'm leaning to keep.--Cúchullain t/c 22:10, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:59, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 05:41, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR Mark Arsten (talk) 03:06, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voorhies Trahan

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

Disputed PROD with no reasons given for removal of PROD tag. Original and remaining concern: No reliable sources to verify this article. Singularity42 (talk) 22:34, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:40, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:40, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep as there's one third party reference that, assuming good faith, backs up the article's claims. I lack the subject expertise to investigate further as while being an aquaculture pioneer that lead the way for a multi-hundred-million dollar industry seems a sufficient claim of notability, the relevant newspapers are offline and the books that would discuss the subject are beyond my reach. Oh, and I've done some clean-up to the article. - Dravecky (talk) 13:32, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Did some more digging myself, and found an online version of the text: [30]. The author of the article describes meeting the subject of this article, and describes his farming technique. He gives "full-credit" to the subject for pioneering a crop-rotation between rice and crawfish. The author goes on to suggest this as one way to increase the effectiveness of crawfish harvests
I guess my only question is that in this context (i.e. the context of the subject being the first person to do this type of rotation), how reliable is the source? The author does not state where this information came from, what research was done, etc. Based on this source, I don't doubt that the subject was probably one of the first crawfish farmers to employ this technique. But the very first?? IMO, I would want at least one more independent item to verify the claim before having a Wikipedia article making the claims in this article (especially considering the COI of the editor who created this Wikipedia article). Singularity42 (talk) 14:27, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:48, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 05:40, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete, no prejudice against recreation based on reliable sources--Ymblanter (talk) 06:45, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Finding Stuff Out

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

Seems like a non-notable program. Even the most basic coverage from newspapers seems to be found nowhere. From their dates, it can easily be deduced that the Google Books hits are false positives. CtP (t • c) 19:26, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 14:05, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article as written misses the actual strongest claim of notability, which is that the show was a shortlisted nominee for two 2013 Canadian Screen Awards (Best Children's or Youth Non-Fiction Program and Best Children's Cross-Platform Project). That is enough to justify an article, certainly — but given the lack of any actual reliable source referencing being cited here, it's not enough to justify this version of the article. I'm willing to reconsider this if somebody can actually locate and add real sources, but in its current form it's a delete (albeit without prejudice against future recreation if somebody creates a properly sourced version in the future). Bearcat (talk) 17:04, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 05:31, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete, which has already been done per A7. The Bushranger One ping only 04:51, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sammy Ijaz

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

Non-notable web show content creator. I was unable to find any interviews or coverage of the individual in reference to their show called "The Red Couch." Also, as it stands, the article currently reads like a resume. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 04:13, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 05:48, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 05:49, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 11:06, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. After being relisted twice, a consensus does not exist for deletion. Merge discussion can take place on the article's talk page if someone should feel so inclined. (non-admin closure) Dusti*Let's talk!* 04:56, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

April 2013 Bachu unrest

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

Contested PROD. This is a news topic which does not meet the threshold of notability to be included in Wikipedia. Stifle (talk) 14:15, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:22, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:58, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:51, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Me1 vs Me2 Snooker with Richard Herring

edit
Me1 vs Me2 Snooker with Richard Herring (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

OK, so this was speedy deleted yesterday, and has been recreated. I can see that the 'longest running snooker podcast' might well be a assertion of importance good enough for A7, so it's time to bring it here.

This podcast isn't notable in its own right. Richard is, the Leceister Square podcast is, the Collings and Herrin podcast is, but this one isn't, because there's no reliable sources talking about it in depth. It just doesn't meet the notability standard. Of the four sources provided in the article at the moment, the first is a blog, the second is a link to download the podcast, and the third is about a completely different Herring show. The fourth, whilst it does mention the snooker podcast, it's barely a mention and is written by the subject himself. All the other sources I've found are the same; a small mention, a para at most, in a feature on/interview with the undoubtedly notable Richard Herring. GedUK  11:52, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, this is more appropriate course of action - I believe we should keep this page. I take on board that the article needs to be better sourced and backed up - a more serious approach will be taken in future in keeping it fact checked. The podcast is mentioned here in an article by the Huffington Post. "Herring's 'Me 1 Vs Me 2 Snooker' podcast, in which he plays himself at billiards, is a little more niche, but arguably represents the diversity of podcasting with equal panache." So there you go, an important podcast in that it shows the diversity of podcasting. http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/07/23/podcast-itunes-billion_n_3638585.html?utm_hp_ref=technology&ir=Technology
Secondly, here is a link from Time Out magazine describing the podcast as one of the top ten Edinburgh Fringe comedy highlights of the year, the Edinburgh Fringe Festival is the most famous arts festival in the world and Time out is a world famous publication, indicating further notability. http://www.timeout.com/london/comedy/edinburgh-fringe-comedy-highlights-2013-top-ten-late-shows-and-odd-nights-out
Thirdly, here is a link showing how the podcast has previously been number one in the Itunes podcast charts showing even further notability - http://www.itunescharts.net/uk/artists/podcast/comedycouk/podcasts/me1-vs-me2-snooker-with-richard-herring/
I also would like to point you in the direction of this press release by Avalon about the Me1 vs Me2 podcast - I believe this indicates at least a certain level of importance. http://www.avalonuk.com/assets/files/Me1vsMe2PR.pdf Wiggs (talk) 22:50, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Another article that does not come from Richard Herring himself: http://www.freakinawesomenetwork.net/2013/05/podcast-purview-me1-vs-me2-snooker-w-richard-herring/
If any wikipedia user could give me any advice on how to improve this article further I would gratefully receive it.Wiggs (talk) 23:20, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This has been up a week without comment from other users Wiggs (talk) 21:57, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 19:03, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • At worst, merge into Richard Herring. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:59, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I don't see enough coverage here, but if the podcasts are to be shown at the Fringe Festival which is currently ongoing, they may attract some press in the next few days. However, since there are thousands of films at this festival, likely not all will be reviewed in the media. Maybe the article is just a little premature? The fact that there are a lot of these podcasts shouldn't affect the result here - Wikipedia isn't the Guinness Book of World Records. —Anne Delong (talk) 02:38, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think the five links I've provided above show a fair bit of coverage - but there may well be more post-Fringe.Wiggs (talk) 21:52, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:31, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000(talk) 20:09, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SEF tram stop

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

Unsourced article about a non-notable tram stop. Fails WP:GNG. - MrX 13:37, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:42, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have now corrected the coordinates for this so that people can see what we are talking about. Somebody else please fix the other one, because I don't know where it is. They are messed up articles! Sw2nd (talk) 13:44, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is now at Asklipiio Voulas tram stop. The Whispering Wind (talk) 13:52, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What did you do? There is no tram stop at those coordinates! Sw2nd (talk) 14:11, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am talking about the actual location of the tram stop on the ground, not the Wikipedia article. That is why I corrected the coordinates. Do you know where it is? Even an intersection! Anything!!! Sw2nd (talk) 14:17, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, the hot weather has addled my brain and I misunderstood your request. If you do a search for Ασκληπιείο Βούλας in Google Maps Greece then the tram stop is there. The Whispering Wind (talk) 14:49, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why me? Could you not fix the wrong coordinates, if you know where it is? I've done it, but it's you that wants to keep the articles. Sw2nd (talk) 17:24, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What you say above is an incorrect interpretetaion of my point of view. I will work with people, but I am just pissed off. Editors who dump and leave, should have their crap flushed away. I congratulate you as being the one other person who has tried to improve SEF tram stop. You know I have worked to improve both of these articles. Now look at Asklipiio Voulas tram stop! Sw2nd (talk) 18:59, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOEFFORT. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:32, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly! WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM. Do something to help!!! Sw2nd (talk) 13:31, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:11, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's impossible for such a major project to exist without the existence of heavy government sources on proposals, environmental reports, budget reports and other studies. All sources are in Greek. Such a station would never be considered for deletion if it was in the US or UK. Is this a case of systemic bias? --Oakshade (talk) 01:59, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
None of "government sources on proposals, environmental reports, budget reports and other studies" count as a reliable independent source as per WP:GNG. As for the Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument; they should be considered for deletion. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:21, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Direct quote from WP:GNG as definition of sources to establish notability:
"Including but not limited to newspapers, books and e-books, magazines, television and radio documentaries, reports by government agencies, and academic journals. In the absence of multiple sources, it must be possible to verify that the source reflects a neutral point of view, is credible and provides sufficient detail for a comprehensive article."
Emphasis mine. To say that this station can't have government sources as establishing notability just because a government agency played a part in the planning and construction of this is silly Wikilawyering game playing. --Oakshade (talk) 02:44, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Direct quote from WP:GNG as definition of sources to establish notability:
""Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject or its creator."
To say that this station can have government sources to establishing notability when a government agency played a part in the planning and construction of this is silly Wikilawyering game playing. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:59, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Again you're just playing WP:LAWYER cherrypicking a phrase whilst ignoring everything else and the spirit of the guideline. See WP:GAMETYPE. If you truly that government sources aren't allowed, then AfD Etihad Campus Metrolink station which has only government sources. I know you won't do it as more people are watching there and that will be a quick "Keep".--Oakshade (talk) 03:06, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll not be AfDing Etihad Campus Metrolink station because to AfD something against consensus would be WP:POINTy. That don't mean to say I think the article should be kept. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:54, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is honorable.--Oakshade (talk) 19:24, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Oakshade and The Whispering Wind. Remember that WP:V only requires (barring WP:BLPs) that sources exist; they are not requred to be in the article at all, or to be easily accessable, or in English. I agree that this seems very much a case of WP:BIAS, and some of the delete !votes above fell out of the WP:ATA tree and hit every branch on the way down. - The Bushranger One ping only 16:58, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:48, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2011–12 Syracuse Crunch season

edit
2011–12 Syracuse Crunch season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While team-on-such-season articles are common, this is the only one for the AHL. Add the fact that minor league hockey isn't all that notable, don't think it will become a precedent. igordebraga ≠ 23:15, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 04:00, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 04:00, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:08, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: - Nom does not give a valid reason to delete this article. The team, league, and season are all notable, and it is certainly acceptable for Wikipedia to keep a properly sourced article on this subject. Dolovis (talk) 21:50, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 04:52, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Darkwoods

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

Nothing more than rather trivial mentions. Not notable. Insulam Simia (talk) 12:29, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:07, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:GNG. Ansh666 03:26, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There just isn't anything out there to show that this niche game is ultimately notable. It was re-released in a compilation set, but just getting a release in a "best of" set isn't really anything that would show notability unless the compilation set itself had some level of notability. Shareware collections very rarely get that level of notability, partially because just about anyone can put those together. It's not like it's Ken Williams putting out a collection of games that he thought were extraordinary. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:44, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. LFaraone 01:30, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SheevaPlug

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

Non notable product. The reliable sources (most of them tech show promo blurbs) do not mention this product. They mention other products, which this article claims are based on the sheevaplug, but there are no sources actually verifying that. Even if they are based on sheeva, notability is not inherited, and it is those actual products which could be notable, not this one. Vast majority of sources are unreliable self published primary sources from the developers (and it seems of the linux developers really, not the plug developers) Gaijin42 (talk) 13:54, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'd say the SheevaPlug is actually notable, but the article is just pretty crappy. The commercial product section should be mostly stripped, replaced with something to say these commercial products exist. Maybe something similar for the OS section too. There were a load of these things sold, with them being one of the first replacements for things like the NSLU2 after they went EOL. Reedy (talk) 15:27, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What sources show that notability? The closest thing I can find is a single slashgear article. Everything else is random blogs or primary sources. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:30, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm, this is a tough one. Certainly seems notable but I've found basically nothing in the way of in-depth coverage by reliable sources. A Google Books search came up with some quick mentions and a book with several pages on how to dump the device's memory for digital forensics purposes, which shows it hasn't totally escaped notice but can't actually source anything in the article. I'm undecided but unless more sources show up it's looking like a merge to Plug computer might be the best choice. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:10, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 18:58, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:06, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:35, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FDR Charts

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

There doesn't seem to be any sourcing supporting notability of these charts. I can find sources from wikis, blogs, and discussion forums, but nothing that would seem to convey notability. —Kww(talk) 18:47, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 04:03, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 04:03, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:05, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as lacking in depth coverage in reliable sources as required by the WP:GNG. If such sources get added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:02, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:GNG. Unsourced claim that it is considered the primary Ukrainian record chart countered by the existence of the Gala radio chart, although top40-charts.com does take data from FDR.[33] However, without any reliable sources (probably not in English, hence our difficulty finding them if they exist) this article has nothing to base its intended encyclopedic content on. -- Trevj (talk) 10:06, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000(talk) 20:04, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Monsters in the Morning

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

No notability claimed nor shown. Just an ordinary radio show. One cite from Orlando Sentinel that "Bubba" was fired. Other than that, no WP:RS. No claim of audited radio audience which might be revealing. Student7 (talk) 22:51, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Average morning zoo lucky to get carriage on XM, but this reads as an entirely too long article about a show with average ratings and notability in their market. Nate • (chatter) 09:12, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep The average morning zoo show doesn't get simulcast across North America on XM radio. There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources including local newspapers as well as trade papers to demonstrate notability. The length of the article is not an argument for deletion, it is one for improvment. RadioFan (talk) 23:04, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 15:59, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:03, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I admit that I'm not really all that familiar with how notability would be established for a radio show, as in most cases the coverage could be considered local. However I was able to find several news stories that discuss the show specifically, as opposed to just mentioning that someone came onto the show. It's enough to where I'd argue that that this meets notability guidelines, although I'm not as confident about this as I'd like. In any case, I've cleaned up the article and removed a lot of the content that read more like a fan entry. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:26, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 22:00, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alamy

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

This article has never had any secondary sources and in my searches I have not been able to find any. GB fan 23:23, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 15:57, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's this section page of stories about Alamy in the British Journal of Photography, I'm not sure if counts as notability. They certainly discuss the company as though you'll already know they exist, and there are lots of other discussions online of how to upload to them etc. Unsure of how to vote. Douglasi (talk) 15:51, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:01, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 06:23, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shadows Of Rising

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

Unsourced track listing, with no established notability. The only article content is cut/paste from Midnight Syndicate. Delete per WP:NALBUMS. Tgeairn (talk) 18:34, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 19:30, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 19:30, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 19:31, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I originally Prod'ded this article as being unverifiable. Fram (talk) 06:45, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:01, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:50, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shelly Silver

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

Seems to fail WP:PROF as well as WP:CREATIVE. This article is unreferenced and reads like a puff piece, so it needs work if it isn't deleted first. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:06, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 08:47, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 08:47, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 08:49, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The confusion with Sheldon silver's nickname does not help with the search, but I cannot find substantive coverage under any of the applicable categories. This is reflected in the WP:SPAMmy contents of the article.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 00:38, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Her work does appear to be in the permanent collections of MOMA and the Pompidou, which should be enough for WP:CREATIVE #4d. And I cleaned out some of the spammier parts of the article and improved the sourcing. But I really wasn't able to find much. For someone who really is of the appropriate stature, I should be able to find more press than a bare mention of her name in local news coverage of a MOCA show (in the article) and an announcement of a showing at a Belgian art center that doesn't even have its own Wikipedia article [34] [35]. There's a little more press on the artist's web site but slim pickings there too. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:36, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Moma caught my eye too. It's not clear that her work has actually been exhibited there, as the article claims. The Moma file page simply says that they own 1 video from Silver and that it was gifted by Silver. I'm not an expert in the ways of the art world, but it seems that "important" works are not usually acquired in this fashion. Is such self-gifting sometimes a "padding" device for creating an association with a recognized institution, or is there still an internal vetting process that would reject non-notable works? Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 17:03, 7 August 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, | Uncle Milty | talk | 22:53, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:50, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. After doing some checking, it appears that simply having a work(s) in the permanent collection of a museum (as opposed to having that work exhibited) is not necessarily notable. For example, this article indicates that a common complaint by donors is that museums relegate their works "to various storage facilities where they sit and gather dust" and that "a museum may accept...a painting by a promising young artist...but that artist's career may fizzle, and they may fade into permanent obscurity (along with their art)". In other words, it is not unusual for museums to hedge on the possible future fame or notability of an artist. In this case, it seems that that notability has yet to be established. Agricola44 (talk) 15:27, 13 August 2013 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep -- exhibitions by MOCA, MOMA, and Pompedieu Centre are sufficient to me to meet WP:CREATIVE -- presumably if she's had art exhibited by these three powerhouses, she has a laundry list of less important museums as well. Put with the chair/Assoc. prof. at Columbia University (Assoc. Prof. is generally not enough at a second-tier school, but at a school like Columbia it can be enough), and I think that she passes the bare. To reply to Agricola44 (whom I rarely disagree with, but do here), I agree that most art owned by major museums, even by significant artists, is in storage, but generally museums' purchase histories tend to reflect the notability of the artist at least at the time. A single work purchased by one museum without other documentation of success may not be enough, but I think that a pattern of collection by significant museums definitely reflects a perceived promise of notability, which seems enough for here. In any case, such purchases are documented and catalogued and thus help to establish the reliability of articles that can be written about the artists, which is the main reason why we have notability guidelines. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 03:12, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It sounds like you've likewise been unable to confirm that her work has actually been exhibited by MOMA, et al. The best source I've been able to find is the MOMA file catalog. Pages describing exhibited works have an "on view" field above the thumbnail with the display location in the museum and have "publication excerpts" and "gallery label" tabs that give various info on the work, e.g. Warhol's Gold Marilyn (Gallery 19, Floor 4) or Picasso's Les Demoiselles (Gallery 2, Floor 5). Conversely, the page on Silver's work The Houses That Are Left says "not on view" and shows no publication or other gallery information. To me, this suggests it has never been rotated into exhibition and that this is rather a case of the museum hedging on any future notability that Silver might have, say through WP :). Best, Agricola44 (talk) 16:19, 16 August 2013 (UTC).[reply]
  • Hi Agricola -- you're right, I was sloppy and trusted the article for confirmation and didn't read your comment closely enough. My bad. But I can confirm that at least at the MOMA her work has been exhibited at least once: [36] -- I don't know if it's a one-time exhibition or a special screening of something that was in an exhibit for a longer time, but it does show that it's not just a film that they accepted, stuck in an archive, and no one has ever seen. I think that this plus the university position (and a Guggenheim Fellowship 2005) puts it above the bar. I've struck out the MoCA (Museum of Chinese in America) comment above because, while it contributes to notability, I don't think it's a big star moment the way MOMA and Pompedieu are. She's certainly not a mega-star, but definitely with the Columbia position, MOMA, and Guggenheim, clearly above the average film professor. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 17:18, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The MOCA that I was referring to in my comment is not Museum of Chinese in America, it is rather the Museum of Contemporary Art in Los Angeles, a major museum for which I could source an exhibit of her work. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:43, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 22:02, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shootout (film series)

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

The article is plagiarized from, and contains no notable information not already present in, the existing articles for the individual films. The copyright violation is not difficult (but rather bothersome) to fix, though doing so would not change the fact that the article is redundant. Psychonaut (talk) 20:13, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There actually is notable information in the Shootout (film series) article that is not included in the existing articles for the individual films. For example the controversies the song "Laila" brought is only included in the Shootout (film series) article and information about the next film in the film series is only included in the Shootout (film series) article. Also, the original articles do not contain a table that compares the revenues of both films that have already released, where as the article Shootout (film series) does. The same can be said about articles Harry Potter (film series) and Dhoom (film series). However, these two articles are there so people can read about the franchise as a whole and compare the different plots, characters, etc. So, Shootout (film series) should remain an article just like Harry Potter (film series) and Dhoom (film series) are articles.BBINDFAN (talk) 20:36, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The "Laila" controversy is rather trivial, and in any case should go in the article about the film it appeared in. The information on the upcoming film is speculative and unsourced. Again, there's nothing notable here which is not already in the articles about the films. —Psychonaut (talk) 20:46, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A reference has been added to the upcoming film in this franchise. Also, the "Laila" controversy is one of the many things that gave the franchise the 18+(for adults only) rating. Trade analysts have said that the box office collections will be affected for future films of this franchise since many families will not watch this movie because of it's 18+ rating, all because of this "Laila" controversy. Therefore, the "Laila" controversy should be on the Shootout (film series) article and is notable (It affected the ratings, box office collections,etc.). Furthermore, you still haven't addressed something. You haven't addressed that the same can be said about articles Harry Potter (film series) and Dhoom (film series) (which still exist). However, these two articles are there so people can read about the franchise as a whole and compare the different plots, characters, box office collections, etc. So, Shootout (film series) should remain an article just like Harry Potter (film series) and Dhoom (film series) are articles. The Shootout (film series) article helps many people, which is what Wikipedia is for! I'm not asking to keep the Shootout (film series) article for personal reasons but instead for the benefits of the Wikipedia users. BBINDFAN (talk) 03:59, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 01:43, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, we have come to the consensus that this page shouldn't be deleted! Thanks!BBINDFAN (talk) 19:04, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the existence of a consensus was so obvious, there would have been no need to relist the discussion. I have just invited further comments from WikiProject Film as this article is tagged as being within its scope. —Psychonaut (talk) 21:06, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since we should have at least three tangible films to have a film series article. There was a similar case with the Journey films, and my argument for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Journey (film series) would apply here. If there is a third film confirmed (meaning that filming is underway, warranting a stand-alone article), then we can have a film series article that aggregates information such as recurring cast and crew, as well as critical reception and box office performance. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:09, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:49, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 06:20, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CherryMusic

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

Not notable software. No GHits other than blogs and promotional sites. No GNews hits. Declined prod. GregJackP Boomer! 01:18, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As of now, there are over 140 people on github, that have starred the project, which means that they look at source code changes and play a part in the developement of the software. Please bear in mind, that this software is directly meant for the end-user, in contrast to software libraries. A software library will have a much bigger audience on github, since github users are mostly programmers and software libraries are meant to be integrated into other projects. CherryMusic on the other hand is a stand-alone program meant for people not being able to program or that have only a basic technological knowledge. Therefore the userbase can be expected to be a multiple of this number, even though this is hard to prove. In the original reasoning for deleting this article, it was mentioned, that the software would not have enough google hits, but there are multiple entries for it on the first search page, even though there seem to be companies with the same name. Furthermore there are many independent sources meantioning it from different countries all over the world. E.g.: south korean, japanese, english, someone wrote a thorough documentation in the arch linux wiki. Moreover there are inependently created software packages for different linux distiributions, such as ubuntu, gentoo and arch linux Lillyb93 (talk) 15:38, 12 August 2013 (UTC)— Lillyb93 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep I also disagree with the removal of this article. The reason for removal were no Google hits? Since when does Google decide about the content of Wikipedia? Google's search engine is based on profiles, so it is commonly known that depending on their profile, users get different search results. I think it is bad practice to judge article notability by Google's search results. Anyway, I get several search results right on the first search page with google and with other search engines, too. There is also another reason why this software deserves it's own page: This software is notable, because it is the first of it's kind. There is no other software out there that has similar features. Being a server software with unique key features, it deserves it's own page. 178.5.215.123 (talk) 19:46, 12 August 2013 (UTC)— 178.5.215.123 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete - No reliable refs to establish notability for this software. A search reveals blogs and download sites but no significant RS coverage. Page was created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 11:55, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No reliable sources out here. Zero news and book hits, all web hits are blogs or self published. The most prominent source is this one, whose opening gambit is : "Two of my best friends, Til and Tom, developed a music streaming server ...." Sorry, but anything your friends write about you is unreliable by definition. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:45, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as lacking in depth coverage in reliable sources as required by the WP:GNG. If such sources get added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:07, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:41, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Solar Deity (band)

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

Unremarkable band. Fails WP:NMG. The band has only released a couple of EPs and singles, and has had no studio album releases. No citations that establish notability. — Richard BB 11:30, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*Let's talk!* 00:50, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Null set. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:32, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nullset

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

Delete because it is unnotable and extremly poorly referenced. Only reference is to a facebook page and a page of which it is only a minor mention reH ghun ghunwI' 00:33, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. LFaraone 01:32, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hugo Schwyzer

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

BLP issues. This article was previously deleted in February 2012 as non-notable; it's now a little more complicated than that, as the amount of sources that exist suggests he probably passes WP:BIO. However, he's a pretty minor academic, and the sheer amount of negative content in this biography I think justifies deleting it under WP:IAR.

This brief article contains descriptions of the subject's sexual affairs, mental health problems, attempted murder and attempted suicide. That amount of negative information would be questionable in a biography of a highly notable celebrity; on a minor academic, it's downright awful. If it weren't so well-sourced, I'd have already nominated it for speedy deletion as an attack page. As it is, the best argument I can make for deleting it is WP:BASICHUMANDECENCY. Robofish (talk) 00:45, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:NOTCENSORED. The number of high-quality sources for the things in the article suggest that he really is notable for them. Some attention to the quality of sources in the article may be a good idea, per WP:BLP: e.g. source [5], for his circumcision, is primary, and that part should either be removed or its sourcing improved. But most of the article looks ok in this respect. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:39, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If he wasn't notable before, he certainly is now! That Damn Snipergirl 04:22, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There are 24 references at the article, but most of them are tabloids (LA Weekly, New York Daily News) and blogs (Jezebel), not Reliable Sources. This is not the kind of coverage we should base an article on, particularly not a BLP and even more particularly a mostly negative BLP. --MelanieN (talk) 04:55, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. He probably meets the GNG, but we have IAR for a reason. There's very little encyclopedic content in this article as it stands right now, and there's unlikely to be any in the near future. Little harm is done by deleting the article, a lot more harm could be done by leaving it up. I see no value in leaving up a highly negative BLP about someone who has recently tried to commit suicide over their coverage on the internet. A few months down the road when things have settled down, the immediate incident is beyond us, and there are more high quality sources available I would not necessarily have a bias against recreation. We could even work on a draft immediately in non-article space and get it up when it's more appropriately balanced towards his life's work and not the last two weeks. His actions are absolutely inexcusable, but we should still treat him with the basic decency that we should treat all of our BLPs with. Kevin Gorman (talk) 07:01, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- per Slate and New York Magazine coverage -- these are not tabloids by any stretch. But I agree with Kevin Gorman that IAR, common sense, and common decency as well as fighting against recentism bias might mean that stubifying to a very short article and then when everything has passed in a few weeks or months, seeing what should be restored makes sense. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 07:22, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and also I'd like to note that some person is unilitarely deleting mosty of the article becuase "it has the existence to cause actual harm to a living person". [sic, lol] --Niemti (talk) 14:18, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Two people != one person. And last I checked the way to resolve an article content disute was on the article's talk page, not by making snarky comments in an AfD discussion. And in all seriousness, what potential harm can be done if all the tabloid crap is removed until this AfD runs its course? Kevin Gorman (talk) 14:21, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not tabloid, also not tabloid, not tabloid too, and now stop censor-vandalizng Wikipedia because of someone's feelings or whatever. --Niemti (talk) 14:33, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please either strike your accusation of vandalism or take it to an appropriate administrative forum to be dealt with. Kevin Gorman (talk) 14:38, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was the one who originally stubbed the article, and I did it due to WP:BLP concerns. People can see the explanation and make comment at the article's talk page. (I don't have a firm view on whether the article should be kept or deleted). Regards, Iselilja (talk) 14:41, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not "accusations", it's factual. There is controversial content, but it is being discussed - right here (and it's not a one-sided discussion), but you can't go and simply delete it just because you don't like it and want to censor because whatever reasons - that is vandalism. But speaking of tabloids, [37] (it's actualy basically all his own confession being quoted). WP:BLP is about proper sources and facts. --Niemti (talk) 14:47, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article is very well sourced by very reliable sources. Neptune's Trident (talk) 16:33, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm afraid I can't see "sexual affairs, mental health problems, attempted murder or attempted suicide" in the article as it stands. It has apparently been deleted? In looking for it, I find lots of articles and interviews by Schwyzer himself about some of those; what most of us consider very personal things. But he's the one writing and talking about them. If someone had been writing this stuff about him, I'd certainly consider deleting it out of ignore-all-rules. But it's his personal life, and if he wants to expose it, we shouldn't be nannies and do it "for his own good". He's got an article on something like that on his own site - we shouldn't be the TSA agent in this picture. So we should consider the article the way we normally do, for notability, by sourcing. And it looks like even the nominator says our article is well sourced. So we keep it. If there are some items that need deletion, we can deal with them individually. --GRuban (talk) 18:03, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They were actually Iselilja's cuts, not mine. I just reinstated them once they'd been reverted. I tend to agree with you that the stubbification was harder than was necessary, but I didn't have time to make a perfect stubbification attempt at the time, and didn't want to leave the article up in its entirety until I did. I think it's probably a good idea for some of us to start a noindexed sandbox draft of a better stub attempt; if no one beats me to it, I will when I have time Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:44, 13 August 2013 (UTC) [reply]

  • Comment Let me say for the record, that in Pasadena, where I am employed at CalTech, this is being talked about a lot and it is definitely a serious enough situation to be acceptable per Wikipedia standards. Considering how many non-notable articles are kept due to declining numbers of editors in recent years (making it easier for non-notable articles to be kept), this certainly fulfills all the requirements of notability! Laval (talk) 21:01, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment One can only question the motives of the nominator and why this article is being placed for deletion again after the recent explosion of his name in the media. I hope the feminist groups that exist to mass edit and purge articles from Wikipedia will be dealt with and banned for their biased editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.246.4.220 (talk) 02:35, 14 August 2013 (UTC) — 173.246.4.220 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment: Please don't make personal attacks or assumptions about the motives of your fellow editors. --MelanieN (talk) 19:03, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The reason this article is even up for debate, despite ALL the many reliable sources, is a handful, or perhaps just one, person(s) doesn't like it, that's no excuse for censoring or deleting a Wikipedia article. Just because someone on Wikipedia doesn't like it is no reason to censor or delete a very well sourced article. The article has already been partially censored and locked so as to not offend a few people. Neptune's Trident (talk) 04:56, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a reply to this and the anon comment above on my motives - I'm not trying to 'censor' anything. My motivations were as expressed in the original nomination, that I felt the amount of negative material compared with the relatively low importance of the subject justified deletion. That said, I'm OK with the stubbed version, and I should have thought of doing that myself. In hindsight I should probably have taken this article to WP:BLPN rather than going straight to AFD, but the fact it was deleted as recently as 2012 inclined me to come here instead. If the general consensus is that he should have an article, perhaps we should close this AFD and move the discussion on to talking about exactly what its contents should be. Robofish (talk) 20:17, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The 'stubbed' version is the censored version where all the so-called offensive information has been miraculously removed, even though ALL of it is well sourced with reliable sources, no one has pointed out where any of the references are not reliable or notable, no one. That's because they can't. Just because an article hurts the feelings of a few would-be do-gooders is no reason to cover up well sourced article information. If any of the article wasn't well sourced that would be one thing, yet it is. Casey Anthony and O.J. Simpson did some bad things, should Wikipedia not allow those sourced facts because a few editors find it offensive? Neptune's Trident (talk) 04:10, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - looking at the history, it appears a large amount of sourced material was unilaterally removed, probably due to IDONTLIKEIT based on the talk page discussion. Even with what remains, it's notable enough to retain. Kelly hi! 06:17, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As a causal reader of feminist and academic sites, he's definitely been a significant presence and his essays and actions have generated a great deal of intelligent discussion about real issues, not merely gossip and certainly not slander. I would have been genuinely surprised to not find an article on him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.234.170.214 (talk) 12:46, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with all of the above listed reasons to keep. Also, the primary focus of his academic work has been sexuality, from a feminist perspective. There is some conflict about the coincidence of this with the facts that he (1) once attempted to murder his intimate partner,[1], and (2) slept with "a not insignificant number" of his students[2]. That conflict is central to his status as a public figure, and should be mentioned in the stub. Tadeina (talk) 16:28, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)I hate to go on a tangent but I'm significantly disappointed in the number of people who are trotting out accusations of censorship just because an article about a living person was temporarily stubbified while discussion was ongoing. No permanent deletion was made, and it's almost certain that most of the material will return, just worded and weighted in a better way than it originally was. The absence of material about him for a handful of days has done absolutely no harm of any sort to anything. We are supposed to veer on the side of caution when we are dealing with living people for a reason - our actions can have real effects on the rest of the world when they go wrong, and not infrequently, do. If the intention had been to censor the article, there are a million ways we could have done so more effectively. Not to get too beansy, but if someone had sneakily redirected his BLP to a small subsection of Pasadena City College's article and then argued that keeping in most of the material would've been undue for that article as a whole, there's a good chance it would've worked. If censorship was the goal, censorship would have been achieved. Robofish brought this here because he wanted an earnest discussion about a possible BLP issue; Iselilja stubbed the article pending discussion because that's not only what you're supposed to do by policy, but the morally right thing to do. Many of you need to go reread WP:AGF - I know it's a policy frequently ignored, but it exists for a reason.

I would suggest we close this AfD and begin to work on a noindexed sandbox of a new version of the article, so that we can discuss what belongs in the article, at what weight it belongs in the article, and how things should be worded. I'll do so myself tomorrow AM if no one else beats me to it (I'm taking my last final today, and am thus pretty busy.) That is how Wikipedia is supposed to work, not just by shouting NOTCENSORED. The actions taken by Robo, Ise, and myself in this situation have been in line with both Wikipedia's ideals, Wikipedia's black-letter policies, and the resolutions about living people passed by the Wikimedia Foundation's board of trustees, and have been responded to with personal attacks. Kevin Gorman (talk) 16:38, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your frustration. But for an external, casual observer it is sometimes hard to distinguish between whitewashing and genuine BLP-sensitive editorial efforts (and sometimes the line between the two is crossed, honestly). I'm certain of your good faith but to people not acquainted with our procedures and policies, it may look baffling. WP:BLP and its application is relatively complicated and counterintuitive stuff at times. I think that the best course of action is simply to explain very clearly what one has cut and why, as you did here. -- cyclopiaspeak! 17:03, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment So now the editors who flagged the article because they didn't like it are now going to be the arbiters of what's allowed in the article and what's not? So it can meet with their approval? And anything that offends them, no matter how well sourced, can or cannot be removed? Talk about the fox guarding the hen house. Neptune's Trident (talk) 17:44, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how it works, nor how it is supposed to work. And I don't think it is what happened here. WP:BLP concerns are a delicate affair, but as anything their application is decided by WP:CONSENSUS. It is not a matter of what offends editors, but of what is appropriate to include and what due weight to do to the various parts of the article.-- cyclopiaspeak! 18:25, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As one of the “flaggers”, I will sign Cyclopia here. This will be decided by ordinary consensus, as usual. You are free to argue for the original version, and others may write (as Gorman has kindly volunteered to) and argue for an alternative. And as indicated; the alternative may well include much of the same that was in the pre-stubbed article; the change may be rewording, adding context to some of the content, shortening other parts and expanding some less controversial sides of his work. I think some changes along those lines may make the article more encyclopedic and less sensational. But this will be decided by consensus, which may require a bit of compromise between editors. (I understand some of the opposition to the stubbing, and I shall not insist that I did everything right, but it was always meant to be the beginning of a discussion, not the end). Regards, Iselilja (talk) 19:01, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I also approve of this approach and the solution proposed by Kevin Gorman above. Do we have consensus to close this AFD and move on to working on a BLP-compliant article? Robofish (talk) 20:23, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:31, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Institute for Middle East Studies Canada

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

Fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG. I am unable to uncover any significant reliable third party coverage of this fairly recently launched organization. The only sources I am able to turn up are the PR releases by the institute and its partner Gaza University. Perhaps there are some sources in non-English reliable sources that I am unable to discover? But barring those it appears the institute is just not notable by Wikipedia standards. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 15:25, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Based on this diff and the author's username, it appears that the author has a COI. Jackmcbarn (talk) 22:57, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Jackmcbarn: That isn't the author, BTW. The author is User:F.ali214. Insulam Simia (talk) 08:08, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for catching that. Jackmcbarn (talk) 15:07, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:57, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:57, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reduce to a stub. / Reluctant delete. I have a feeling that one day there will be reliable, third-party sources about this organisation. However, at the moment there is not, as far as we can tell. If we don't have any reliable, third-party sources then it becomes very difficult to write a neutral article about it. We could reduce it to a stub and then wait to see if it gets mentioned in third-party sources such as newspapers. I would be happy to add it to my watch list to make sure that it doesn't get expanded by a load of non-neutral stuff. If people aren't happy with that solution then I guess the only option is to delete it. Yaris678 (talk) 12:04, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:59, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jackmcbarn (talk) 00:42, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Speedy kept - the "rationaile" given for deletion is not remotely based on policy. Snow Is Coming. If a policy-based reasion for deletion can be articulated than a renomination can be done. The Bushranger One ping only 04:54, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of female film score composers

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

Redundant list with zero additional information that would make a worthwhile WP:LIST article. A category would serve the purpose of this list equally well. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:26, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to America's Most Wanted (group). Mark Arsten (talk) 20:42, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Criminals (album)

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

This album did not receive enough reliable coverage to justify an article. All information minus tracklist is already found at artist page. Beerest355 Talk 02:09, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:26, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:43, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*Let's talk!* 00:09, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:43, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dhiraj mishra

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

The subject of this article may well become notable. At present the notability appears to be predicted for the future. I suggest the article be deleted without prejudice to later re-creation when true notability may be asserted and cited. Fiddle Faddle 14:54, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:59, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:59, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:01, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*Let's talk!* 00:08, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The Bushranger One ping only 04:55, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wilma Tisch

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

On its face, it fails WP:GNG. Her only notability seems to be WP:INHERITED. Bbb23 (talk) 14:50, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. The creator of the article has added a section about Tisch's philanthropic activities. It's certaily a significant and welcome improvement to the article, but I'll withhold judgment until I see that the editor is done and I've had a chance to review the material and sourcing.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:49, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Based on what's been added, I'd say keep. Andrew Gray (talk) 00:57, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:01, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:02, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*Let's talk!* 00:07, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:43, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sujit Bakshi

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

Article is about a business person which lacks the signficant coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability. The sourcing in the article not significant. My own searches find that mostly, he is quoted or mentioned, but lacks significant coverage. I did find this article covering his move to vCustomer. But that was it for anythign significant. Searches were also conducted under "Sujit Baksi", an alternate transliteration of his name that appears to be commonly used, but it turned up only more mentions. Whpq (talk) 13:08, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The article is effectively a career summary of the subject's movement around desks at various firms. The references are just passing mentions in these roles; nothing indicates biographical notability. AllyD (talk) 16:06, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:22, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*Let's talk!* 00:06, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR Mark Arsten (talk) 03:01, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ConQAT

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

I don't believe this software passes the threshold of notability. All references in the article are to primary sources, and the claims of notability in the article rest only on these primary sources. I searched Google, Google News, and Google Scholar for independent sources covering the product in-detail and turned up empty-handed. Psychonaut (talk) 20:04, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 23:51, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:06, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 14:02, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To cite notability: "Sources of evidence include recognized peer reviewed publications". All of the references in the article are contributions to the most well-respected international scientific conferences and journals of the IEEE, the most important professional institution in the area of computer science. These kinds of scientific publications all have to pass a rigorous review process. I added more references from non-primary sources to the article, again scientific publications of well-respected conferences written by research groups around the world (Canada, Spain, India, Germany etc.). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fuduprinz (talk • contribs) 17:40, 8 August 2013‎

Of the papers in the "References" section but not actually cited by the article:
  • The paper by Deissenboeck et al. is not independent and thus cannot be used as a reliable source to establish notability.
  • The paper by Kaur et al. most certainly did not pass a rigorous review process; the International Journal of Advanced Research in Computer Science and Software Engineering has a highfalutin name and makes grandiose claims that its articles achieve "very high publicity and acquire very high reputation". It reality it appears to publish anything and everything submitted to it. It unabashedly promotes snake-oil cryptography whose authors are lazy (or stupid) enough to think that citing the IEEE home page, the Wikipedia home page, and the ASCII table is sufficient to prove cryptographic security [38]. It's got lots of pretty logos on its "Indexing" page, none of which belong to any major journal indexing services.
  • The article Martinez et al. doesn't discuss ConQAT in any depth; it makes only a passing mention of it. The authors point out that it was one tool among many that they could have used.
  • You claim the article by Gerardi & Quante is published by Springer in Softwaretechnik-Trends. I can see a publication by this name on the Springer website, but I don't see that article listed there. Isn't this actually their submission to the WSR 2012 workshop? If so, was it actually subject to peer review? If so, I agree that it counts towards establishing notability, though I wouldn't say that this publication alone is sufficient.
  • The paper by Stephan et al. again mentions ConQAT mostly in passing. It briefly outlines some planned experiments using ConQAT, but doesn't actually carry out these experiments. I don't think this paper establishes notability for this software. —Psychonaut (talk) 09:21, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*Let's talk!* 00:05, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:44, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne Larsen

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Koala15 (talk) 19:03, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 23:52, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 23:53, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 14:03, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*Let's talk!* 00:02, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:44, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Secret Syde

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

Article fails WP:BAND. Koala15 (talk) 19:01, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 23:54, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 23:54, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 14:03, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*Let's talk!* 00:02, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:44, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dave DeSantis

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Koala15 (talk) 18:57, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 23:55, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 23:55, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 14:04, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*Let's talk!* 00:02, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:44, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shekhar Gurera

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

Does not meet Notability guidelines Factchecker25 (talk) 13:14, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:19, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:20, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 14:06, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*Let's talk!* 00:01, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ http://www.hugoschwyzer.net/2013/08/01/goodbye-part-two-the-unpublished-story-of-the-attempted-murder-suicide/
  2. ^ http://jezebel.com/5865973/the-real-reason-you-shouldnt-fuck-your-professor
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2013_August_12&oldid=1142633028"