Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 March 16

< 15 March	17 March >

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

The result was Snow close. I'm closing this one early, as it fails WP:NBOOK pretty clearly. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:37, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Behind the Walls (novel)

[edit]

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

Article about a self-published novel that was released two weeks ago. I am unable to find significant discussion of this book as per WP:NBOOK. Proposed deletion contested. ... discospinster _talk 22:14, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing found that meets WP:BKCRIT. --Ben Ben (talk) 22:28, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as above.TheLongTone (talk) 23:23, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - yeah, nothing to suggest this is notable yet. Stalwart111 23:32, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The result was delete. → Call me Hahc21 05:13, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Detective (2014 film)

[edit]

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

Non-notable film, no secondary coverage BOVINEBOY2008 21:53, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. Fails WP:NFILM. Looks like the article was padded with a few irrelevant citations. Fairly obviously created by a single purpose account with a conflict of interest. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:42, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Good Detective work BB (chortle). This is a non-notable film. I've also removed the incorrect GA tag that was on the page. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:38, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete as being with kindness waaaaayyyyy TOO SOON. It's own "official" Facebook page tells us it's a short due to come out sometime in 2014, and the article itself tells us it's a student film. No matter its origin, the film and its principals are not yet sourcable. "If" it ever is notable, the article can be recreated or undeleted. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 07:41, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I think we can safely say that the wider consensus is that the DM isn't a reliable source and other sources are very LOCAL. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:20, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Karl Baxter

[edit]

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

Promotional article for not very notable boat builder,e.g. "By 2005 he was able to use his profits to purchase a home." About half the article is devoted to an utterly trivial publicity-seeking matter in which he seems to exploited another person's newsworthiness. . DGG ( talk ) 21:39, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unremarkable businessman, notability claim is essentially a single news story...must have been a quiet day for the story to have found its way beyond the Bournemouth Echo.TheLongTone (talk) 23:29, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 23:50, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Potential keep -- He went up to high turnover quickly. There is some non-encyclopaedic content. The material on Lance Armstrong wreaks of WP:COATHANGER, but there is enough of value to allow it to be kept. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:33, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep though I mean that with some reluctance, as I don't consider references with authors like "QMI Agency" to be exactly legitimate and newspapers like the Bournemouth Echo to be more than extremely local in distribution. But he has gotten the attention of writers (writers with real first and last names) for the Daily Mail, attention which has then gone on to be repeated in New Zealand, and to me that smacks of notability, even if that notability is as to his poor decision-making as a businessman. Article should probably be reduced to little more than a stub, however, and I don't see much future interest in the subject. Also: I think its "reeks", not "wreaks", and WP:COATHANGER appears not to exist, though maybe you mean WP:COATRACK?. KDS4444^Talk 09:36, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 04:11, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy Christy

[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG #1. Google search for "nancy christy" and "nancy christy millionaire" do not provide results that show significant coverage. Although WP:NOTTEMPORARY, sources in article as it stands still do not provide significant coverage as stated in WP:GNG. Article was deleted in February 2007 after first AFD, and guidelines in WP:RPDA have not been met with details in new article. AldezD (talk) 21:08, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete She has done nothing that meets notability guidelines. Game show constetants are almost never notable for such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:23, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 21:35, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of an assertion of notability and lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 22:02, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It looks like this article was deleted previously and then recreated. Is the second version substantially different from the first? If not, wouldn't a CSD make more sense? N^oformation ^Talk 22:15, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, unless new sourcing is shown t meet GNG. A redirect to List of Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? top prize winners is preferred. Has there been an effort to see if any sourcing exists? Sportfan5000 (talk) 02:06, 17 March 2014 (UTC) [WP:BAN 02:00, 24 March 2014 (UTC)][reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Johnpacklambert. It does not appear that she did anything that would make her notable. Unlike reality show winners, game show contestants/winners are quite common, and have never been considered automatically notable. Bearian (talk) 16:58, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was torn here with a redirect vote, but redirects are for those articles with possibilities of notable expansion, which will never happen here. — Wylie pedia 14:56, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#G4 and salt. (Created this way round to evade existing salting of Klysman Henrique). JohnCD (talk) 21:28, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Henrique Klysman

[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG JMHamo (talk) 20:33, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 20:36, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - per WP:G4. This article is not substantively different from the one deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Klysman Henrique. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:18, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. → Call me Hahc21 05:13, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kaleidoscope (design agency)

[edit]

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

promotional article for small company. The references are entirely press releases or newspaper articles devoted to products which the firm happens to have some role in. DGG ( talk ) 20:29, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Philafrenzy (talk) 20:43, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - yes, there's coverage but not a lot of it is about the agency itself. Plenty of passing references but not much by way of significant coverage. The text of the article reflects that - most of the key historical information about the agency is completely unverified and unsourced. Stalwart111 23:37, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - article is pasted together from a mixture of unsourced assertions, none of which makes a very good case for notability, combined with passing mentions of the subject taken from articles whose actual subject was not the agency. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:56, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. → Call me Hahc21 05:14, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

William David Smith

[edit]

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

The article has no references to sources independent of the composer and the one person who has recorded his work, and I have been unable to find any on line. The article is not written from a neutral point of view and appears to have been written to promote an upcoming album. —Anne Delong (talk) 00:48, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as nominator —Anne Delong (talk) 03:37, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or at most redirect to Yaroslav Senyshyn. I have access to several subscription archives and the coverage is zero. Ditto Google Newspaper archive. Ditto Google Books. All that can be reliably sourced is that he is a Trappist monk who has had two pieces recorded and performed by Senyshyn. And that is from a very brief mention in an interview with Senyshyn himself. [1]. There simply is not enough for a stand alone article. This is one of a suite of articles by a single-purpose editor, all related to promoting MODAL Research (a project at Simon Fraser University) and its members. See also Deanna C. C. Peluso. They are all referenced to primary sources and of the group, probably only Yaroslav Senyshyn] is worth cleaning up and keeping as marginally notable. But even that one is horribly promotional and referenced almost entirely to primary sources. Voceditenore (talk) 10:38, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → Call me Hahc21 18:50, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- the article has two citations: the first fails verification; the second cites the Wikipedia article in which the same editor has inserted the same piece of WP:CRYSTAL, this time without citation. Actually, the Albany Records recording can now be cited to this. But this is hardly in-depth coverage of Smith, and it's all I can find, so I think it fails both GNG and WP:COMPOSER by a country mile. --Stfg (talk) 15:07, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Might meet WP:ACADEMIC if significant impact in music composition can be shown. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:16, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:36, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do It for Johnny

[edit]

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

I'm not seeing any significant independent coverage of this -- at all. It would appear to fall well short of our minimum standards for film notability. Am I missing something? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:09, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:10, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. My first thought was the line from The Outsiders. I'm unable to find any coverage on this documentary. Gong show 00:10, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Weak keep. In diligent searches, I found its production spoken about in depth in a few sources. It just barely pushes at WP:NF. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 02:40, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep (changed from above) per MQS, whose additions appear to be just enough to put this topic over the bar. Kudos, Michael. Gong show 16:28, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the above comments that the sources added by MQS establish enough notability to warrant inclusion. It's not a major motion picture, but it was a significant documentary that was noted on substantially inr eliable independent sources. Keep. Candleabracadabra (talk) 02:13, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:53, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BROODWORK

[edit]

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

promotional sounding language, not clear how this might meet WP:CORP. Reads like an ad for this company. RadioFan (talk) 03:47, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Page creator here. The BROODWORK page was created as part of the Art+Feminism Edit-A-Thon held recently at various locations nationwide, which was intended to bolster Wikipedia's spotty coverage of women in contemporary art, or issues particular or specific to women. BROODWORK is not a company, but an umbrella organization that organizes exhibitions and activities that promote dialogue in the arts about issues related to parenthood. My argument for notability would be BROODWORK's multiple exhibitions at high profile arts institutions, the specificity of BROODWORK's mission, and the notability of various participating artists. The language of the page was designed to be as neutral as possible. Does it require some cleanup? 2602:304:37A8:8F09:3CD7:370D:76D0:CE (talk) 15:12, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proper sig (signed out). Glowimperial (talk) 15:13, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 19:03, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → Call me Hahc21 18:07, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Would prefer to see it merged, but not sure on a target. Seems worth including in some form altough the efforts seems only marginally notable per WIkipedia standards. Candleabracadabra (talk) 22:09, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'd support merge if there were somewhere to merge them too. Still not clear how this can stand on it's own as a notable topic.--RadioFan (talk) 02:47, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." This is a notable organization with links to source articles and people involved. There is no cause for deletion or merging this article. Also, as above, it's not a company, which is clear in the first sentence. I am not involved with the practice and will be glad to assist in editing it if there is constructive feeback behind this deletion consideration. As it is, it seems like it was a mistake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atrowbri (talk • contribs) 20:47, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:19, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative media (U.S. political left)

[edit]

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

Stand-alone list article with no sources to either justify any item's inclusion or the notability of the subject itself, defined as "alternative media espousing the views of the American political left." (Actually there's one source, a YouTube video). Nor is there an inclusion criteria, resulting in a hodge podge covering everything from Project Censored to MSNBC. The corresponding Alternative media (U.S. political right) is not a stand-alone list but an article, and includes sources. Possible WP:TNT situation whereby someone could recreate using the same name, but as an article rather than a list. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 03:35, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If this article gets deleted, please remember to fix links to it in other articles (something that wasn't done when two similar articles were recently deleted). - dcljr (talk) 20:23, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 19:09, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm not really sure what motivates this deletion request. The articles' inclusion criteria would appear to be that the wikilinked wikipedia articles contain descriptions of "left" or "progressive" etc biased media - each notable in their own right or they wouldn't have an article here ;-). The articles reason to exist is no doubt to complement the Alternative media (U.S. political right) article. Yes it could do with a lot of work to change it from a list, to a full article, but that's hardly a reason to delete it, it's a reason to improve it. Eight related articles appear to link to it, so it appears some people think it's useful. Perhaps we should try spamming it with improvement templates before going for the jugular and deleting it!--Tony Wills (talk) 13:24, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The presence of "left" or "progressive," assuming it's referring to the outlet as a whole rather than a certain part of it, only qualifies it to be in a list of progressive media, not this one. The notability of the individual entries isn't the point, it's whether they belong here, which requires sourcing -- and even then, the subject of the article and inclusion criteria are ill-defined (see other comments below). Yes I'm sure the conservative article is the reason this exists, but again, isn't actually justification. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 16:03, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → Call me Hahc21 18:07, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nominator is unaware that nominations need to prove that the articles cannot be sourced, rather than simply are not sourced. The nominator is unaware that lists are OK. The nominator cites TNT but does not know what it means. The corresponding "right" article is actually a better reason for TNT than this one, in that it is a coatrack, half of its content being the ripping yarn of the contention of liberal bias. Ok, I never said it was a good reason for TNT, just that it is a better one... Anarchangel (talk) 12:49, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is not that there aren't sources about "liberal media" that also refers to them as "alternative;" the problem (one of them) is the subject isn't even defined to the extent that any inclusion criteria exists! What qualifies something as "alternative media?" Self-identification? Right-wing news calls all non-right-wing news liberal, so in that way any small centrist organization should be included here, too. It's nonsense. Lack of inclusion criteria is also how something like MSNBC can exist here. If the inclusion criteria is that reliable sources have written about it as both being liberal and "alternative," then each needs a source for inclusion under those terms or is otherwise original research. There is no "lists are OK" policy. Lists ARE ok....as long as they meet the standards of the various policies/guidelines. How do I not know what TNT means? It means, in this case, that a good article could possibly be written on the subject, but what's there now is to ungodly terrible that it needs to be deleted in order to start over. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 16:03, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:05, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mongolian Wikipedia

[edit]

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

Non-notable version of Wikipedia; the only third-party sources are about the controversy over who founded Wikipedia. eh bien mon prince (talk) 01:35, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mongolia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:31, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:31, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 19:09, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is a Mongolian Wikipedia, and the article on it should be improved, not deleted. --DThomsen8 (talk) 01:29, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This debate should be included on the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. --DThomsen8 (talk) 12:48, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → Call me Hahc21 18:06, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Mongolian Wikipedia is notable enough, the article can be improved, but certainly it shouldn't be deleted. Gaston28 (talk) 00:28, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:08, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Võro Wikipedia

[edit]

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

Non-notable version of Wikipedia; the article includes no sources. eh bien mon prince (talk) 01:32, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:30, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:30, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 19:10, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → Call me Hahc21 18:06, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or consider possible merge to appropriate target. I don't see how deletion is appropriate. Candleabracadabra (talk) 22:11, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication that the topic has ever been covered in a reliable, 3rd-party source.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:14, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. → Call me Hahc21 05:14, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mersey Model Co. Ltd.

[edit]

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

No news or book coverage I can find - the former not that shocking given the age of the company and how long it's been out of business. There is quite a lot of coverage in steam model fansites, but a lot of them appear to be personal sites and I (cautiously) suggest that they aren't particularly reliable.

I don't think this has any particular reflection on the importance of the subject, or the effort of the author - it's just a really hard area to source - but sourcing is what's required. Ironholds (talk) 19:30, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mersey Models were a short lived but influential company. They made a wide range (considering the short life) of products which are generally considered to be high quality. The products are now highly sought after by collectors. Unfortunately, there is very little in the way of documentation for the short history of the company. As noted above, most of the documentation, especially relating to the products themselves, is in the form of private web sites which, I agree, aren't neccessarily reliable in a formal sense. --Roly (talk) 20:01, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah; as said, this is a pity :/. It's a fascinating field. Ironholds (talk) 22:02, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:22, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:22, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - I've added a single reference for which the GoogleBooks preview is unavailable but the search results including the following paragraph: "Mersey Model Company Ltd Trading from Cooper's Building, Church Street, Liverpool and their workshop in Wallasey in the 1930s, they sold a variety of model workshop tools, steam engines, and toy and model boats. They did not survive the...". I'm inclined to think that if the company is provided coverage in a 2011 book on steam model making of the era, it would likely have received coverage in its own day. Few newspapers of the 1930s and 40s exist today but the company seems to have made a significant impact on the history of its industry then and since and notability isn't temporary. I, too, would like to see more references and there are a few other mentions listed in GoogleBooks search results (for books also without previews) suggesting there is more coverage out there. Be nice to see this one rescued. Stalwart111 00:16, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the sourcing! I can see the full page (ah, the wonders of international copyright status) and it indeed discusses MMCL in that paragraph - a good source. I agree with you, personally, that there was probably historical coverage, but while notability is not temporary, it also has to be shown. --Ironholds (talk) 00:42, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For sure, which is why I qualified my opinion. I think there's something to be said for a company that traded for only 5 years which made products significant enough that the company is talked about in a book 70 years later. Hard to think a company like that wouldn't have received more coverage back in the day (or any day since). But yes, we need to see sources for such a claim to be verified. I'll keep working on it. Stalwart111 00:48, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I so love steam and this looks brilliant, but the one ref isn't enough, and I can't see how a company in existence for just 5 years can be notable. It's a case of they existed...and I'd love to play with one of these! Szzuk (talk) 16:20, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → Call me Hahc21 18:05, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Short-lived company whose products are now collectible. Its existence is well documented. Not hugely notable butlegendary within its niche. Candleabracadabra (talk) 22:17, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All true statements. Could you explain how it meets the notability guidelines, too? --Ironholds (talk) 23:52, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep -- I presume that the products are now collectors pieces, so that people will find the article useful, despite its shortlived nature. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:47, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If an article that is worth having fails the notability criteria then the notability guidelines have turned out to be inappropriate in the particular case. They are fallible guidelines and not rules. However, the information we report should be verifiable and should not be merely nostalgic reminiscence. I think the article succeeds on this count although it would be good to see it strengthened. Thincat (talk) 18:35, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 15:36, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of burn centers in the United States

[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This is a largely uncited list (and any cites that do exist are and probably would continue to be primary sources). Most of the list entries are redlinked - those that are not redlinked are not, in the sample I checked, standalone articles, but sections or even just sentences about the burn centre in an article on the hospital.

It is also a randomly selected thing: burn centres are pretty common, a lot of large hospitals have them.

I think this list fails WP:NOT as it's an indiscriminate collection of information which is not sourced from reliable sources. Guy (Help!) 18:05, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. As was decision in previous 2013 AFD. Burn centers are NOT common; there is citation in article that the state of Mississippi was going to have none at all after one would close. It is cited there are just 123 in the U.S., vs. thousands of hospitals. In a pretty big area that I know about, there is just one. You want to get airlifted to there, if you want to live, rather than being taken by ambulance to somewhere else. It is a finite, knowable list, with two main sources described in the lede as itemizing them. The fact of there being redlinks or links to sections in articles is not relevant; what matters is coverage of the fact of being a burn center and coverage of it being a limited list. I think there is not any valid deletion argument within the nomination. --do ncr am 03:03, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Why would we take time an effort for a page that had a AFD in 2013 and all ten votes were to "Keep"? Burn centers tend to be unique and this list can be an important resource to this encyclopedia. If the amount of red links are a cause for concern, then many list of hospitals pages would need to be deleted. Whoisjohngalt (talk) 19:54, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per doncram. Rather than being run of the mill common, burn-center hospitals are rare, and mentioned commonly and prominently in the news media, so significant coverage is readily available. Having a list here would be helpful for our users to research and navigate, compared to a category. Bearian (talk) 17:02, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. → Call me Hahc21 05:15, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Educate~

[edit]

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

No third-party sources, not indexed in any selective major database. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NJournals. Randykitty (talk) 13:19, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indexed in Education Source, which is "the most authoritative, full-text database for education scholarship" and "covers topics from early childhood education to parent-teacher relations" according to EBSCO. Freemrpj (talk) 26 February 2014 — Preceding undated comment added 17:03, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yep, EBSCO has an active PR department, praising their products. --Randykitty (talk) 17:45, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "In August 2013 the University of Leeds sold the British Education Index database of journal articles and the British Education Thesaurus to EBSCO Information Services". That's a fact - not PR. Freemrpj (talk) 26 February 2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.40.77.132 (talk) 18:17, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 20:10, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - my college gets the online EBSCOhost, but I am not sure about the notability of this one. Bearian (talk) 15:37, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → Call me Hahc21 18:04, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As the Chair of the Educate~ Editorial Board I would like a decision on this. Educate~ is indexed in the most relevant database for Education and since its creation in 2001 has been published by the Institute of Education, University of London. "The Institute of Education is a world-leading university specialising in education and the social sciences. Founded in 1902, the Institute currently has more than 7,000 students and 800 staff. In January 2014, the Institute was recognised by Ofsted for its 'Outstanding' initial teacher training across primary, secondary and further education. In the 2014 QS World University Rankings, the Institute was ranked number one for education worldwide. In the most recent Research Assessment Exercise two-thirds of the publications that the IOE submitted were judged to be internationally significant and over a third were judged to be "world leading"." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.82.32.179 (talk) 10:28, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations with the excellent evaluation of your institute, its production, and your colleagues. Unfortunately, notability is not inherited, so this has no bearing on the notability of this journal. --Randykitty (talk) 15:15, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say it had. My main point is where it is indexed, which you have ignored. I thought that was most relevant. I would simply like a decision: keep or delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.82.32.179 (talk) 16:16, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The only database that currently carries it (EBSCO) is not very selective and hence does not establish notability. As for a decision, that's not up to me but to the closing admin. --Randykitty (talk) 17:24, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While it's great to have more open access journals, the editorial board appears to be all doc students from the institution and from what I can tell, the journal is not (yet?) widely cited. A Google Scholar search of the title and the ISBN shows two pages of citations, which while a start is not sufficient significant coverage by the GNG to my eyes. Moreover, I can't find any coverage about the journal itself, its history or influence or articles written about the journal itself. There isn't enough material to sustain an encyclopedic article and there is no desirable target for a cheap redirect. (?) Please ping me if more (non-English and offline) sources show in the future. czar ♔ 02:42, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. → Call me Hahc21 03:00, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nanogem

[edit]

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

I've read the standard for notability and I question this article. 400 Lux (talk) 20:29, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no third-party coverage, nothing found via Google. Huon (talk) 20:37, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:27, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: the only independent coverage I could find is a thread at a gemology forum, which does not count as a reliable source. (A journal article about these "nano-gems" is mentioned there, but it does not seem to be in-depth coverage.) הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 00:31, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This (PDF) seems to be the original document mentioned there (p. 156). הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 00:35, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → Call me Hahc21 18:03, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per הסרפד. No reliable sources, and no indication that this particular sort of artificial gem is more notable than any other. BethNaught (talk) 19:46, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:33, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Col. Raj Singh, Raja of Kasli

[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. This seems to be a very minor "prince" of an equally minor Indian princely state. Per the article, he apparently didn't even become raja until 1992 - a legal impossibility because the final remnants of the princely titles etc were abolished in 1971. I'm not even sure that Kasli was such a state - it looks like it may have been a jagir, which would make the guy little more than a landowner with some historic, inactive rights to collect revenue on behalf of the higher-ups.

He might be notable for his military commands but I can't find any sources for those, either. Sitush (talk) 19:43, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the pretenders to various extinct thrones are generally considered notable (see the extensive hierarchy at Category:Pretenders). However, my understanding from what's above is that Kasli was not a sovereign entity but merely a subnational unit, like a barony or county in the West. Absent stronger independent sources to indicate notability, I don't think that he meets WP:BIO. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:11, 8 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:46, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → Call me Hahc21 18:02, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing in the article is reliably sourced. Pictures of the subject standing in a former maharajah's hunting party towering over a dead tiger (from the days when dead tigers were a mark of pride for some) don't make the material either more notable or reliable. Yes, as user:Lankiveil states, there are no pretenders to Indian princely states. The states were only nominally sovereign, existing at the pleasure of their suzerain, the British Raj. As user:Sitush remarks, the princes irrevocably and legally lost their states (and reigns) in 1947 when the Raj ended and India became independent; in 1971, the titles, privileges, and remuneration awarded to the former princes were abolished by an amendment to the constitution of India. The page name itself, "Col. Raj Singh, Raja of Kasli" is inaccurate. I checked the Imperial Gazetteer of India and Kasli is not listed there as a princely state, indeed not listed as anything. I also did a search in all books published before 1947 (the year of India's independence) and Kasli, Rajputana, is not mentioned anywhere. That makes it very likely that the "Raja" was a zamindar or landlord, as Sitush suggests. The length and breadth of India was speckled with zamindars. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 22:57, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. → Call me Hahc21 05:16, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Todd Baker

[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Previous AfD closed for want of participation. Same sourcing issues remain—a dearth of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources (?), failing WP:CREATIVE and WP:ENT. I scrapped the bottom of the dozens of databases I can access and can't find any more coverage than is currently in the article, which currently consists of SPS, asides, and promotional materials. czar ♔ 21:21, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. czar ♔ 21:37, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:14, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 22:27, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → Call me Hahc21 18:01, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Too soon. Candleabracadabra (talk) 22:21, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:16, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Projectproject

[edit]

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

Non-notable performing group; requires significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Local sources only mention group briefly or do not satisfy WP:GNG/WP:RS. -- Wikipedical (talk) 20:58, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 21:09, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:13, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:13, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 22:27, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → Call me Hahc21 18:01, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. → Call me Hahc21 03:00, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Williams (English model)

[edit]

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

Non-notable model, fails WP:GNG and WP:NMODEL. No indication of any significance whatsoever and the only references provided are to Zoo Magazine's website. Tiller54 (talk) 23:11, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't find any sources demonstrating notability, although googling seems to pose a challenge because there appears to be another model named Rachel Williams who had a lot of success in the early 90's. If sources can be improved, I'll reconsider. Bali88 (talk) 02:01, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I thought the same thing initially, that this was an insignificant win in an insignificant magazine, but I believe my follow-up research led me to believe that Zoo wasn't just a UK mag, that there was a significant global membership. I dunno if that's enough to warrant inclusion as a BLP, but I figured I'd contribute my thoughts for background. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:02, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The magazine has separate UK, Australian and South African issues but it's not a WP:RS and she still fails WP:GNG and WP:NMODEL. Tiller54 (talk) 18:56, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Boring non notable model. I googled only to have a look at her - not my type. I didn't look for real refs because I can look at the article and her age and guess there aren't any. I will keep an eye on the afd and if any refs are added to the article I will reconsider. Szzuk (talk) 16:28, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

lol...dude, did you just vote to delete her because she is boring and you're not attracted to her? Bali88 (talk) 01:12, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, i'm shallow, but not that shallow, lol. I decided she was an obvious delete and then I decided to see if she was eye candy. Szzuk (talk) 14:32, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → Call me Hahc21 18:00, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- A student who got some extra money from a model-photo harly sounds notable to me. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:50, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete votes. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MC Guimê

[edit]

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

Contested PROD with no reason given. Fails WP:NMUSIC JMHamo (talk) 17:51, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn - On reflection it does seem to meet WP:NMUSIC. Please close. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JMHamo (talk • contribs) 18:03, 16 March 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. → Call me Hahc21 05:17, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Subhash Ware

[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. election candidates are not notable and there is little else to be said. Forms part of a series of bio articles created by AAP-centric contributors in the run-up to the 2014 Indian general elections. Sitush (talk) 16:18, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:POLITICIAN. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:10, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 00:45, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from the election candidature , he is into the national executive post for the party, which is http://www.aamaadmiparty.org/national-executive here.--Winchetan (talk) 06:47, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Subhash ware has 3 decades history of social work well documented in various newspapers and government organisations Smileamiledr (talk) 01:04, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Plenty of social work and references go against the decision of deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smileamiledr (talk • contribs) 22:42, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I second Smileamiledr. Subhash Ware deserved an article even before his nomination for LS candidature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Myaoon (talk • contribs) 10:46, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This person Sitush is acting in a biased manner. He appears to be of right wing ideology and is therefore maliciously deleting even legitimate information. Proof is that he removed the association of Subhash ware with the SM J oshi foundation even though a refernce shows clear association ( on frivolous ground that it does not say @honorary@ which he could have easily edited. How do we report him for bias?Smileamiledr (talk) 23:45, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

a fact based on a secondary source "Sangad,a secular and non political forum lists Subhash Ware's association with social organisations Rastra Seva Dal, S.M.Joshi Socialist Foundation and Maharastra Socialist Front in the context of rural development movements.[4]" was deleted by Sitush maliciously even though reference 4 directs to the websiteSmileamiledr (talk) 00:13, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eh? The article says "Subhash Ware is secretary of the S M Joshi Socialist Foundation" and that agrees with the source. Why you think I've removed it is beyond me, although I've no idea whether the S M Joshi Foundation is any more significant than my local cub scout group. Neither the article nor the source says "honorary" but all that words means is that he doesn't get paid for his duties in respect of that organisation. I think that you really need to get a grip on what is and is not notable in an article: the guy may be a member of a swimming club, for all I know, but that doesn't mean we mention it.

Accusing me of right-wing bias isn't going to get you anything other than possibly a warning for personal attacks, especially since I'm regularly accused of bias by competing interests across a massive range of articles. At various times, I've been accused of being left-wing, right-wing, anti-Muslim, anti-Hindu, pro-Pakistan, pro-India etc, all of which contradictory accusations tend to suggest that I am in fact neutral. - Sitush (talk) 10:12, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. → Call me Hahc21 01:51, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shannon Ritch

[edit]

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

Non-notable MMA fighter Peter Rehse (talk) 15:49, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 15:49, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — The article passes WP:NMMA. He has fought twice for Pride FC and once for World Extreme Cagefighting. Poison Whiskey 16:36, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Do you even look at articles before you nominate them?? It would take me less time to skim through a fight record to find the required top tier fights versus doing everything that is needed to nominate said article for deletion....LOL. • Sepulwiki (talk) 09:00, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep He technically does meet WP:NMMA, even though he lost all 3 of his top tier fights (as well as nearly 80 in total). He's like a journeyman boxer--lots of losses but no notable wins.Mdtemp (talk) 18:57, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly the WP:NMMA are pretty good guidelines but just as some who don't quite make the mark remain notable this I think is the opposite example. Lots of losses in a long career.Peter Rehse (talk) 19:15, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have strong feeling about this. The article does need better sources.Mdtemp (talk) 19:30, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:NMMA. 108.34.218.75 (talk) 01:10, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No need to drag this out any more, closing as snow keep -- RoySmith (talk) 13:54, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Miroslav Keresteš

[edit]

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

I deleted this article as a result of closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jan Matěj. I recently received a request to undelete it:

Can you undelete please article about Slovak footballer Miroslav Keresteš, who is currently playing for Czech side FC Zbrojovka Brno. He made his professional debut for FC Zbrojovka Brno on 24 February 2014 against AC Sparta Prague [2]

As a purely administrative action, I have undeleted it and bring it here to let people who are familiar with the subject matter decide if the reason given in the undeletion request is indeed a valid reason to undelete. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:26, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Made his first team debut for FC Zbrojovka Brno, so passes WP:NFOOTBALL now... JMHamo (talk) 01:12, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per above. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 06:38, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, has played in a fully professional league, so now passes WP:NFOOTY. Needs expanding to pass GNG. Fenix down (talk) 08:59, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - now appears to be notable per WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:49, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. → Call me Hahc21 01:51, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sexxx Dreans

[edit]

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

This is a poorly-formatted, misspelled attempt at creating an article for a song that already has a designated page (Sexxx Dreams currently redirects to the album article, Artpop). Please delete. Another Believer _(Talk) 15:07, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 15:20, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as incorrect title. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 21:55, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I hope the article is judged based on Wikipedia:Notability (music), as it could easily be moved to the correct title by an admin if it it notable. GoingBatty (talk) 23:11, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm finding trivial coverage (i.e., single-sentence mentions within album reviews) but not enough material to warrant an independent article at this time. As nom notes, the correctly-spelled title, "Sexxx Dreams", already redirects to Artpop, the song's parent album. That's all that's needed for now. Gong show 00:18, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no significant coverage XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 04:04, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – D'uh. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 15:15, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. → Call me Hahc21 05:17, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We/Nous

[edit]

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

While the film title is a pronoun making a web search impossible, adding the filmmaker's name yields zero significant results, just mentions in databases and books indicating that it existed. No awards, either. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:38, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:39, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:43, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete this 3-minute short film. Listed at IMDB simply as We it is not entirely unsourcable when we include the filmmaker in our searches, but fails by volumes in meeting WP:NF. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 07:24, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above; I cannot find sources to show that this meets WP:GNG or WP:NF. Gong show 00:28, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn. C 679 13:08, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Czech Republic–Libya relations

[edit]

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

No content which cannot reasonably be included at Foreign relations of the Czech Republic and the equivalent page for Libya. Absence of significant coverage to warrant a standalone article. C 679 13:53, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. C 679 13:58, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. C 679 13:58, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. C 679 13:59, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. More information and sources are easily found. Historically, Czechoslovakia had close trade relations with Libya. It was a major weapons supplier[3] and in 1978 the government apparently granted Qaddafi the Order of the White Lion. At the beginning of the Libyan revolution, they backed Qaddafi[4], but following his defeat the Czech Republic moved quickly to reestablish trade ties.[5]. Last year, the Czech Republic has been providing training to Libyan judges.[6]. More info can be found in Report on the Foreign Policy of the Czech Republic. Pburka (talk) 21:26, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as pburka indicates there is coverage of actual relations. LibStar (talk) 00:18, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Pburka. There is verifiable evidence of close relations between the two countries, Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:44, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. → Call me Hahc21 01:50, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

QAliber

[edit]

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

Unreferenced and I can't find any material to support WP:GNG or other notability guidelines. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:29, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The Test and Try "first look" review linked in the article is the most substantial coverage that I can see, and is not enough to demonstrate that the product ever attained notability. AllyD (talk) 08:54, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - software article of unclear notability. The test&try link is a blog and not sufficient to establish notability. A search did not reveal any RS coverage (except for a printer with the same name). Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 14:12, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm unable to find evidence that this meets WP:GNG or WP:NSOFT. Gong show 00:23, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Nobody other than the nominator is in favour of deletion. Michig (talk) 07:55, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dojo Toolkit

[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Self-published or trivial references. I can't find any material to support WP:GNG or other notability guidelines. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:28, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As well as the previous AfD discussion from 2006, there are publications such as an O'Reilly book on Dojo and accompanying coverage. Though there is little apparent press coverage of Dojo in the past 4 years, notability is not temporary and I would stay with the previous AfD decision. AllyD (talk) 12:41, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, because of good amount of secondary source coverage, and also notability is not temporary. — Cirt (talk) 18:27, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If there are secondary sources, they should be added to the article. If the AfD fails and no sources are present with a week of its closing, I will redirect it somewhere. It makes no sense to have article of this low quality for apparently non-notable subjects. As for "temporary notability", the last AfD was not closed as keep because it was found to be notable, rather it was found to be discussed by "the Web2.0 crowd" when discussing "Ajax/JavaScript toolkits". There was never a discussion about notability, which is now the standard for AfDs. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:37, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. 3 points:
- WP:Notability (software)#Nominating for deletion: "Before nominating an unsourced article for deletion, make sure to verify that it is non-notable, not just missing citations. One way to do this is to perform a Google books, Google news, or Google scholar search"
  - There are many books about Dojo, or where Dojo is mentioned or recommended. see here or here.
  - For now Dojo is still included in the Google Hosted Libraries, which hosts "most popular, open-source JavaScript libraries" according to Google.
- WP:NOTTEMPORARY: Notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage. (see also WP:Recentism)
  - Our previous AfD was in 2006. Dojo has actually been more notable since then. I think it reached its acme in 2008 or 2009. Despite it may (or may not?) be less used now comparing to 2008 and 2009, it may still have its little place in history.
- WP:MUST: "cleanup of articles in bad quality shouldn't be done through a deletion discussion but at the article's talk page." Also, WP:NRVE: "Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article."
  - So I don't think deletion or merger is good, if the notability is proved in our discussion and the AfD fails, but someone still think there's not enough sources added in this article. In that case, feel free to use {{Third-party}}, {{Primary sources}} or {{Cleanup}}, and let other editors do these things. --Tomchen1989 (talk) 20:58, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply three points:

Literacy is required. Nom states "I can't find any material to support WP:GNG or other notability guidelines"

Literacy is required. The previous nomination did not discuss notability. A point I made before and you didn't seem to read that either.

Cleaning is not required since there are no source to support notability and you didn't provide any. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:16, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By following WP:Notability (software)#Nominating for deletion and performing a Google books search, I found really a lot of materials to support Notability Guidelines, and I provided this link, this link and Google Hosted Libraries' link, they are just not added in the article, but they exist. --Tomchen1989 (talk) 22:31, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dojo Toolkit: "The name comes up often when...", "widely considered one of the top 3 or 4 Javascript toolkits", "relatively well known", "Dojo is notable and has recived backing from industry giants".. Well I don't think they did not talk about "notability". Please explain why you think otherwise. --Tomchen1989 (talk) 22:36, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And what I meant is, even if in 2006 it was not notable enough, it was in 2008 or 2009, and thus it should not be deleted. --Tomchen1989 (talk) 22:39, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All right, I think Walter misunderstand "Notability". Notability among "the Web2.0 crowd", or Notability as a "Ajax/JavaScript toolkit", is still "Notability", which indicates its notability in JavaScript and web development history or something like that. You can't say notability in web development history is not notability. WP:Notability (software)#Inclusion: "Software is notable if it meets any one of these criteria: The software is discussed in reliable sources as significant in its particular field..." --Tomchen1989 (talk) 22:55, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another important point to add: I thought there was no proof of notability in the article, I was wrong. In Dojo Toolkit#Further reading section, so many third party published books are provided there, making it perfectly meet WP:Notability (software)#Inclusion: "Software is notable if it meets any one of these criteria: The software is the subject of multiple printed third party manuals, instruction books..." I think the notability is pretty obvious and actually thought about voting "Speedy Keep", I don't get why Walter described it as "apparently non-notable subject". --Tomchen1989 (talk) 00:25, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. → Call me Hahc21 01:48, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Jordan

[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG JMHamo (talk) 03:19, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 03:20, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:14, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Player has not played in fully professional league, nor played senior international football, so fails NFOOTY. No indication of any other achievements garnering significant reliable coverage to achieve GNG. Fenix down (talk) 13:54, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no indication of notability. --Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 18:38, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 04:25, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. → Call me Hahc21 01:48, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Mahon

[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG JMHamo (talk) 02:34, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 02:35, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:14, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Player has not played in fully professional league, nor played senior international football, so fails NFOOTY. No indication of any other achievements garnering significant reliable coverage to achieve GNG. Fenix down (talk) 13:53, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no indication of notability and it does not pass the notability guidelines. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 18:40, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I though Derry City F.C. was a professional club, which though located in Northern Ireland plays in the senior league in RoI. If so, he ought to be notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:02, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. → Call me Hahc21 05:19, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Ring with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948

[edit]

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

I don't know if anyone has ever nominated a featured article for deletion, but this is quite simply not notable. The player is notable, and so is the tour/series, but not the player's role in the series. This is clear from the article itself: "Although the 1948 tour of England was an unprecedented triumph for the Australians, Ring's leg spin was not prominent in the success" and "Ring had limited opportunities with the bat". St Anselm (talk) 02:07, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As there were sufficient sources to develop this to FA status, the topic is clearly notable so there aren't grounds for deletion here. Vast amounts of material has been written on the famous 1948 "Invincibles" team, providing a solid foundation for specialised articles on this topic. Nick-D (talk) 02:13, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, the presence of sources does not imply notability. Yes, the team is clearly notable - but none the material seems to focus Doug Ring. The fact that this (somehow) passed FA is not a reason to keep it in itself. St Anselm (talk) 02:22, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please see also WP:LOTSOFSOURCES. St Anselm (talk) 02:55, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the sources consulted provided sufficient detail to get this article to FA status, that doesn't seem at all relevant: quite the opposite in fact. Nick-D (talk) 09:12, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So, can you actually name a source that provides significant coverage? Or are you merely trusting the FA reviewers? St Anselm (talk) 09:20, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Nick-D (talk) 02:14, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Nick-D. Nev1 (talk) 02:19, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, largely per Nick-D. The nominator seems to have misinterpreted the WP:GNG, which says "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list.". Ring's performance in the series has received this significant coverage in indepdenent and reliable sources, so he is notable per Wikipedia's standards. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:10, 16 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]

No, that is precisely what I am taking issue with. Where is the significant coverage of Ring's performance? Can you name a source? St Anselm (talk) 04:22, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's the ones in the article, for starters. Have you looked at them all? I find it hard to believe that the article would have made it through FAC if all the references are bogus. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:35, 21 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Yes, the references are bogus. And no, I don't know how it passed FA. The reference comes closest is Ring's obituary, which has a few paragraphs about how Ring would refer to himself as "the ground staff", how he misfielded a ball in the Fifth Test, and how he had fond memories of singing happy birthday to Bradman. That cannot possibly be regarded as significant coverage. St Anselm (talk) 10:07, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I note that Jack Pollard's From Bradman to Border (which might be expected to have something, but which I have not read), is listed in the References, but is not footnoted in the article. I have not been able to consult The A–Z of Australian cricketers. However, that is only footnoted twice - once to talk about another player, and once to simply provide statistics. The bulk of the footnotes are, of course, scorecards. These are reliable sources, but do not provide significant coverage. St Anselm (talk) 10:13, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep as this has not a snowballs chance. The nominator has clearly missed that, to at least the standard required a the featured article review, the subject is noted in reliable sources. If it is noted then it is notable. To claim otherwise is stretching the use of language beyond breaking point - Peripitus (Talk) 09:11, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not what notability means at all. Notability means significant coverage. St Anselm (talk) 09:20, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There's a ton of these articles in this category. And don't waste your time telling me about WP:OTHERSTUFF. I think they're all FAs too. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:49, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete There is no need to create articles that have specific intersections of a player and a given year. This is just over excessive coverage of a topic, out of line with a general encyclopedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:13, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note the 2009 group nomination for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sam Loxton with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948. Bencherlite ^Talk 23:50, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I can see arguments on both sides of this, but i think this was well thrashed out at the dicussion to which Bencherlite refers, and I don't think anything is gained for the encyclopedia by deleting this article and the raft of related ones. Really, what do we achieve by removing this material from the public space? It will just mean that, if someone out there has a great interest in Doug Ring, they will find it harder to learn about his career. Will that person ever be me? No thanks. Do I want to rule it for others? No thanks. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:32, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hang on - nobody talked about deleting the raft of related articles. Bradman, Harvey, Lindwall, Miller et al clearly had important roles in the 1948 tours; Doug Ring clearly did not. In fact, Ring was only mentioned once during that discussion referred to, and that was in User:PeeJay2K3's comment "I strongly doubt that Saggers, Ring et al. are actually that prominent". If someone wants to learn about Doug Ring, the correct place to go is the Doug Ring article. St Anselm (talk) 00:43, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It strikes me that a valid analogy could be made with actors appearing in films. Donald Bradman with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948 would be like Brad Pitt in Mr. & Mrs. Smith. Are there lots of sources discussing Pitt's performance? Yes. It is Pitt's most important work? Probably not. But Doug Ring with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948 is in a different order together. That would be more like Jennifer Morrison in Mr. & Mrs. Smith. And even then, I'm sure we would find more reliable sources discussing Jennifer Morrison's role than we have discussing Ring's role. St Anselm (talk) 00:59, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Nick-D. Certainly seems to have been enough coverage to support the writing of the article to suggest that it was notable, not to mention that it is part of a series of articles about players of the highly notable 1948 side. Really don't see why anyone would bother trying to delete a good article that is sourced anyway... surely there are better things to do with ones time? Anotherclown (talk) 10:58, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But it's not sourced - that's the problem. Most of the footnotes are scorecards, and none of them seem to provide any significant coverage of the subject. Hence, it fails WP:GNG, and I'm not aware of any notability guideline under which it can be kept. St Anselm (talk) 11:20, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article goes into way too much detail for an encyclopaedia, albeit immaculately researched and written. I can possibly see articles like this existing for other members of the team who played a significantly more prominent role (and even then it's sketchy), but Ring was barely involved in the Test series. – Pee Jay 11:30, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please also see this previous AfD, which was closed as keep. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:09, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- ... for those of you who missed the link that I provided yesterday to the same 2009 AfD, that is... Bencherlite ^Talk 12:19, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or perhaps merge the "role" section somewhere, and redirect to wherever that is). I've always seen this series of articles as being a failure to condense the subject into an encyclopedia article (or articles). Books focusing on a notable subject would generally be expected to cover the subject in detail, and just because information can be cited to books doesn't mean that it should be included in an encyclopedia article. An essential part of writing an encyclopedia article is selecting the portions of the information available that are important to understanding the topic. This article consists primarily of information such as the score or outcome at different points in different matches. Those are minute details that are not at all essential to understanding the main notable subject of the Australian cricket team in England in 1948. Except for the "role" section, this article is all material that encyclopedia editors should have selected to not include in Wikipedia. While I'm not sure if there is a policy or guideline that specifically addresses what I'm getting at, I think WP:IINFO comes closest, in that it states that articles should not primarily be a summary of what happened, but instead should focus on why those events are considered important. I do, however, think that the "role" section of this article is better content that could perhaps be salvaged by merging it to another article (perhaps by combining it with similar content from other articles on other members of the team). A summary of how each member of the team affected the overall outcome of the test matches seems more like appropriate content for an encyclopedic set of articles on the topic than the rest of what is included in these articles. Calathan (talk) 23:01, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and troutsmack the ever-increasingly problematic FA-groupies who are promoting articles that should not be promoted time and time and time again while the encyclopedia languishes. jps (talk) 23:10, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, lean merge. I find it difficult to really consider this article in isolation from the cohort it accompanies, as the arguments mostly seem to be based on whether this is too much detail for an encyclopedia, and this would seem to go to the point of whether these kinds of articles are appropriate as a whole. I tend to think that we are risking falling down the rabbit-hole into subpages and subpages until we have full books' worth of material on individual topics, which I think is a manifest failure of the purpose of an encyclopedia. At the same time, I know that if an FA along these lines was AfDed in one of the areas I edit, I probably wouldn't think twice before !voting to keep. I guess my ultimate conclusion is that a single article about the team's performance as a whole is probably within the boundaries, but that individual articles on every team member's performance in a single series is probably a bit much. Frickeg (talk) 12:24, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per WP:NOTPAPER. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 15:37, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I commented on some of the FACs in this "series", and supported their promotion to FA. This was not one on which I had a say. To be honest, I was never a huge fan of this series of "1948" articles, although I admire the work that their creator did. It seemed, and seems, a little bit too much, and that is coming from someone who writes about little but cricket. However, I cannot see a huge problem with this article's existence. The main argument seems to be about the notability of Ring in the 1948 tour; this is not really a valid argument, based on the sources. In the print sources (and I admit to having read most of them, I'm afraid!) quoted, there is significant coverage of Ring's role. None of these focus exclusively on Ring, but cover all the players in the team extensively. Admittedly, there would not be a huge amount on Ring but I believe there would be enough to justify an article. The books used are very in-depth and as this was a huge tour in the history of cricket, the coverage was exhaustive to the point of tedium. It is possible to find out lots about what Ring did in most of the games in which he played. Whether or not an article is desirable on this, I don't think that we can say that it should not exist based on coverage in the sources. The use of scorecards should not detract from coverage in print. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:42, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment On that topic, it's worth noting that this article was developed before the National Library of Australia's wonderful Trove resource of digitalised newspapers became available. Searching for references to Doug Ring in 1948 returns 101 newspaper stories [7]. Articles with some useful coverage for this article include [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18]. Nick-D (talk) 00:39, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But "significant" means "more than routine coverage". The first item, for example, merely reports on his selection in the squad. If we went on that, there would be an article on every cricketer on every tour - e.g. Trent Copeland with the Australian cricket team in Sri Lanka in 2011. St Anselm (talk) 01:36, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seems sufficient to me. I've developed FAs on specialised military history topics which are unlikely to be much interest to a general readership and have only received a few pages of coverage in reliable sources. I imagine that cricket nerds would find this article as interesting as I find those articles to be, and the level of notability doesn't seem dissimilar. I note that this book which was also published after the article's FAC calls Doug Ring an "ideal selection" for the tour and seems to provide a reasonable degree of coverage of his part in the tour if the snippets available from searching Google Books are anything to go by. The extremely famous 1948 "Invincibles" team can't really be compared to the 2011 Sri Lanka touring team IMO given the large number of books, documentaries, etc which have been produced on the 1948 tour. Nick-D (talk) 08:37, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Wikipedia is not a "general encyclopedia", as suggested by others here. It "It combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers." – Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:58, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:32, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Charles James Buchanan, 4th Baronet

[edit]

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

I don't see any grounds for notability here beyond his hereditary baronetcy which in itself is not sufficient grounds for notability. A baronet is the lowest inherited titled British order, and while hereditary Barons, Viscounts, Earls, Marquesses and Dukes were entitled to sit in the House of Lords and pass judgement on British Law prior to the House of Lords Act 1999, hereditary baronets have never had the automatic right to sit in the upper House of Lords, and thus are constitutionally insignificant. Flaming Ferrari (talk) 13:27, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Again, someone else who did more than inherit a title (JP, DL, and High Sheriff). Also, these older creations, before the age of the internet, are going to be harder to verify for notability. Dhtwiki (talk) 23:00, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:00, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- I do not think JP or DL makes a man notable, but Sheriff does. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:32, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:31, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Walter Halsey, 2nd Baronet

[edit]

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

I don't see any grounds for notability here beyond his hereditary baronetcy which in itself is not sufficient grounds for notability. A baronet is the lowest inherited titled British order, and while hereditary Barons, Viscounts, Earls, Marquesses and Dukes were entitled to sit in the House of Lords and pass judgement on British Law prior to the House of Lords Act 1999, hereditary baronets have never had the automatic right to sit in the upper House of Lords, and thus are constitutionally insignificant. Flaming Ferrari (talk) 13:36, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Did serve as deputy (lord) lieutenant, justice of the peace; was created OBE and had a lieutenant colonelcy. Plus, his rank in an ongoing honors system was high, if not a peer. Dhtwiki (talk) 22:30, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:00, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep -- Chairmanship of an insurance company makes him just notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:34, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, ONEEVENT--Ymblanter (talk) 10:35, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zipatoni

[edit]

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

no notability for the company; no point in merging with the proprietors, who are equally non notable. No significant coverage about the company except a trivial controversy. DGG ( talk ) 07:09, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 00:10, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. One event. Candleabracadabra (talk) 03:12, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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