Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 December 7

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 6 December	8 December >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 07:37, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rana Muhammad Dilawar

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

A non notable individual. Though he do find cursory mention in some news sources but fails WP:BIO. SMS ^Talk 23:59, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. SMS ^Talk 00:00, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Negligible sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:42, 9 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Autobiography of NN - winning a quiz and obtaining a good degree does not make someone notable. Arjayay (talk) 17:46, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. An anonymous editor removed the AfD notice, twice. I restored it the second time, and left a warning, but because this editor is using varying IP addresses the warning may not do much good. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:19, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've semi-protected the page. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:45, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:09, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Crash Course episodes

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

This is a list of all of the episodes of a youtube series. It is uncited and I believe that it is uncitable due to the topic area. Unlike episodes of a TV show, there is no coverage of the individual episodes in the literature. I boldly redirected the list to its parent article but I was reverted. Guerillero | My Talk 23:10, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - We have already gone over this. The consensus was to keep. --Thorwald (talk) 23:41, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see a consensus when I look at the parent topic's talk page. The opinions of the six people who engaged in the discussion is fairly divided. --Guerillero | My Talk 00:01, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:54, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:54, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This list article has no real purpose and provides absolutely no information that a link to the YouTube channel itself does not already provide. That link is already on the parent article so this article is, at best, just an out-of-date mirror of a YouTube channel's listings. This article is an unsourced, non-notable electronic program guide. This article was created in response to the episode listing being removed from the parent article because it was too excessive, it is even more inappropriate as a standalone article. Merging it into the parent article would be inappropriate, so the best option is to delete the article. - Aoidh (talk) 10:43, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Aoidh. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:53, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep per WP:SNOW. I'm not averse to having this deletion discussion a couple of weeks from now but there's absolutely zero point in nominating this article for deletion so soon after its creation. I'm not sure why people continually insist on nominating high-interest articles for deletion so quickly. Just work on improving it for the time being. Alex Muller 17:41, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Nelson Mandela

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

Overlong and nonnotable. All there is the dreaded "reaction syndrome" where editors think it is ok to just jam massive amounts of quotes into articles. Whoever does this should slap themselves silly. We don't care if everyone responded to this news. Beerest 2 talk 22:50, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I can see reasons you'd want to improve the article, (and "overlong" is a fixable complaint), but "nonnotable"? Do you really think an event notable enough to be the main pictured "In the news" entry on the main page is not notable to have its own article? It's absurd to say "there are too many quotes from heads of state about this event" and at the same time say "this event is nonnotable". – Quadell ^(talk) 23:04, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If a quote farm is not what we want here at Wikipedia, then let's work to change the format of the article. Surely the death of Mandela is notable. Reactions from world leaders can be summarized. So can reactions by celebrities, other notable figures, etc. What major events were held around the world is his honor? The funeral, the public gatherings, other memorial services, etc. I agree that the article needs work, but just deleting it is not the answer. --Another Believer _(Talk) 23:25, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh! I should probably disclose that I started the article. Sorry. --Another Believer _(Talk) 23:33, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I also hate when articles consist solely of quote farms, but this is Nelson Mandela we're talking about here. Article in its current state is pretty poor, but I think this'll evidently pass WP:EVENT. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 23:32, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:49, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to Death and (state) funeral of Nelson Mandela which is the standard procedure for these kind of articles: Margareth Thatcher, Hugo Chavez etc. Iselilja (talk) 00:06, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename per Iselilja. This event and upcoming event has been the top news story internationally so it easily passes notability standards. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:37, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep and Rename This is a substantially notable article with issues that can be fixed by editing. I'm calling for a Snow Keep because no one has voted for deletion besides the nominator and there is no way the page is actually going to be deleted. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 00:49, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to Death and Funeral of Nelson Mandela. It is very ridiculous that there is even a discussion for deletion. It is the de facto norm for very important people especially famous monarchs and presidents to have their own article in wikipedia for death and funeral as noted by Iselilja. Deaths of such important people are quite rare (maybe 1 in few years) and they all deserve their own articles. I am sure the person who proposed deletion has never seen such an article on wikipedia. Maybe we should start having an option to do a thorough check for articles with similar scope on wikipedia and only then flag an article for deletion. Many a times, deletion flags are raised by people who have no idea that many other articles with similar scope exist already on wikipedia. Gurumoorthy Poochandhai 01:12, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per everything Taylor Trescott said. Rcsprinter (constabulary) @ 01:13, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball Keep per the above; see Death and state funeral of Jack Layton for a similar notable case.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 01:22, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep per WP:BEFORE, his death passes WP:EVENT - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:14, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep – in addition to the above reasons for not deleting the article, it's got some notable material merging which with the parent article will clearly clutter the latter. Cinosaur (talk) 05:32, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. We already have other articles specifying the deaths of certain notable people, so why delete this one while well sourced?--Jusjih (talk) 06:13, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Very notable death as he was one of the world's most prominent figures in world history. However, once more coverage surfaces (such as his funeral and the period of mourning) then renaming the article should be strongly considered. MasterMind5991 (talk) 07:44, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this, and all similar. Just a quote farm. If readers want to know all the great things he's done, that's what Nelson Mandela is for. There, the facts are presented in a far more neutral and far less repetitive way. Any actual events (death, funeral, new memorial buildings named for him, days of mourning) can easily fit there, too. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:35, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Quadell's comments.—FrankBoy 12:02, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - for now. Let this grow for a while until after the funeral, then trim it back. If there's not enough left for more that a start-class article, merge it back. But for now, keep it here to save cluttering. Sophie means wisdom (talk) 12:18, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep and rename to Death and state funeral of Nelson Mandela, as per Iselilja. There are formats for articles of this nature (please see Death and state funeral of Hugo Chávez) wherein they have the following format:

1 - Illness and Death Here, we would discuss any of the health problems that Nelson Mandela was contending with that lead up to his death, there are literally thousands of articles from South African articles that will detail it.

2 - Reactions This is where we would put all the quotes, respectively in the order of Domestic (South African reaction), International (The reactions of the governments of other countries), Supranational (The reaction of governing bodies which are not necessarily countries, such as the EU, FIFA, African Union, NATO etc) and Individuals (The reactions of other politicians, celebrities, activists, humanitarians and other notable persons who are notable, in this case, we would assume it is an individual who has a Wikipedia entry).

3 - Funeral This would be information regarding the actual funeral. When, where, how, was the body laid in state, were there any large memorial services leading up to it? (I know there will be one at Soccer City on 10 December 2013). Here, we would also list the notable persons who were in attendance as well as describe any impact the funeral might have had on the national, regional and domestic scale in terms of socioeconomic and political aspects.

Nelson Mandela's funeral is going to be a huge affair and it definitely, certainly, most assuredly is notable enough to have its own article, and as such, the article should be improved to meet the standards that other statesmen's funerals' articles get. Aleksandar Bulovic' (talk) 13:13, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 22:29, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Late Show with David Letterman episodes

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

The list is completely unfinished, the season articles are empty and i don't see these empty pages serving any purpose. Koala15 (talk) 01:13, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are all empty and serve no purpose.

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 November 30. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 01:16, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:17, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:17, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In this edit on season 1 there seems to be a full roster of people. I can't tell if it's accurate or not, though. Some of the other seasons (17, 18, 21) have information, but again- can't verify immediately whether or not this is accurate. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:14, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Daily talk shows are a complete abuse of the 'list of episodes' template. Usually unless someone has a good database of every show these are impossible to source, but at that they're too long to make sense out of. Nate • (chatter) 08:03, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. – Recollected • 06:04, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just found the following comment above the title of this AFD. I have reformated it and moved it here. Additionally, this editor removed most of the AFD notices, so I will replace them and relist this discussion. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 22:46, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, | Uncle Milty | talk | 22:49, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - the few seasons with actual episode information on them can be merged onto List of Late Show with David Letterman episodes but I see no need for each season to have it's own article, especially as underdeveloped as they all are. iMatthew / talk 23:00, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - after thinking it over yes these should be deleted, its way too much to try to log every episode Aqlpswkodejifrhugty (talk) 00:07, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 15:37, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Monopoly (Star Wars)

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

There is no need for separate article about Star Wars monopoly. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:46, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:55, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: two-line article with no sourcing; utterly fails WP:GNG, and since there is no reliable sourcing there is nothing here to merge.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 23:57, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to either Monopoly (game), where Star Wars Monopoly redirects to, or List of licensed and localized editions of Monopoly: USA#S, where the several Star Wars editions are listed. I don't think that the disambig would make a redirect useless in this case. Ansh6 6 6 00:15, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As stated above, the page should be deleted. It does not give enough information or any details on the Star Wars Monopoly game. It is only a partial overview with no sources to back it up. The page also made a promotional claim without a citation. Maybe if there were references it could be merged to Monopoly (game). Meatsgains (talk) 01:47, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nobody is going to type "Monopoly (Star Wars)" into the search field. And there's no need for a separate article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:46, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Somebody familiar with WP title disambiguation might. Or "Monopoly (Star Wars version)" or something like that. I know that I do that type of thing sometimes. Maybe I'm just crazy... Ansh6 6 6 05:04, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I suggested an unlikely redirect here once, and some more practical-minded editor pointed out that nobody but Wikipedia diehards would ever type that in. I had the same reaction as you: "Ha, I do that." But I think that other guy was right. Redirects are cheap, but there's no reason to create ones that depend on esoteric knowledge. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:15, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - But, we're not creating one: it already exists. Ansh6 6 6 01:48, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what the harm in keeping the redirect would be, though it would help only a few people. So redirect but I don't have a serious problem with outright deletion. Hobit (talk) 22:36, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Compare Star Wars Pez, which is a notable merchandizing effort. Bearian (talk) 19:43, 10 December 2013 (UTC) (See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Star wars pez.) Bearian (talk) 19:45, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Existing redirects, such as Star Wars Monopoly, should be sufficient navigational devices. This title implies an entity or event called Monopoly in the Star Wars universe (or related to Star Wars in the real world). I have a copy of this game—maybe even two—and can confirm that its name is not simply Monopoly. --BDD (talk) 07:40, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:04, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Totapuri mango

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

This is just a mango cultivar. Not sure if it deserves separate article. By the way, the user was blocked indefinitely shortly after he created this article. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:31, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 00:00, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We have over 70 mango cultivars with their own article, so I think some research is needed to see if this one is notable enough for an article. It would also be helpful if all of the other mango cultivar articles had titles that were consistent. You can see them all at Category:Mango cultivars. Also, List of mango cultivars might have some more that are articles but not in the category yet. Obviously there are some mango fans on Wikipedia to have such good coverage! First Light (talk) 16:39, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Aside from consisting of 100% original research, this stub has so many issues of style and tone that it would be far easier to rewrite it from scratch rather than modify what's there now, should the topic prove notable. Rivertorch (talk) 17:04, 8 December 2013 (UTC) In light of First Light's revisions, keep. Rivertorch (talk) 05:46, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I went ahead and stubbed the article and referenced it. It appears to be one of the more widely grown varieties for export as pulp, so having an article seems worthwhile, even a short stub. If kept, it should be moved to Totapuri (mango). First Light (talk) 23:30, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. First Light's version appears to demonstrate notability, and the article is a good base for potential further expansion. Tazerdadog (talk) 23:38, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it has good coverage in books as well. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:58, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Suite Life on Deck#Cast. --BDD (talk) 07:42, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bailey Pickett

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

Stupid fancruft that got kept at AfD, even though the arguments there were just saying WP:But there must be sources! This doesn't belong on Wikipedia, character biographies aren't kept just because the show is notable. Beerest 2 talk 22:19, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 00:02, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the same reason as last time: the character is not notable. Simply being a main character is not enough to establish notability. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:41, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Suite Life on Deck#Cast. -- Whpq (talk) 17:31, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 07:50, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Christmas Parade

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

Original research, no sources whatsoever. Alex^{discussion ★} 21:14, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not even close to any form of thoroughness--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 01:50, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Author may have been referring to Disney Parks Christmas Day Parade? In which case, the article already exists, and a redirect would be too broad, as there are dozens of "Christmas Parades" that can fit.. (a new set index article perhaps?) -- œ ^™ 08:59, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:09, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jaime Augusto Zobel

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

Promotional article, fails WP:ANYBIO. While the company he heads may be notable, he is not. If and when he gets coverage, this article can be re-created with real sources, not press releases. Coretheapple (talk) 21:08, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 21:11, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 21:12, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG KEEP- He is notable. There probably isn't a single Filipino who doesn't knows who he is. --Jondel (talk) 06:40, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to prove that statement false. Not everyone knows who he is. People may know about the ayala malls but not everyone knows that "ayala" is actually a family name. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 05:38, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That may be, but the coverage on him is too skimpy for an article. Here's[1] what Google News shows up, and that would seem to include the Phillipines media. There's not a single article on him; all are incidental mentions. I'm not the one who tagged this for notability, by the way. Coretheapple (talk) 16:01, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The search may be faulty though because of the article name: the person is called Jaime Augusto Zobel de Ayala. As the head of a major national conglomerate (and the country's oldest extant corporation), he has to be notable. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 04:20, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's the same search. He just hasn't received much coverage. And nobody is arguing about the notability of his company, but it doesn't flow to him. See WP:BIG, WP:NOTINHERITED. Coretheapple (talk) 14:06, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He's plenty notable, but you may need to tweak search results to include "ayala" in his name. His name is often abbreviated "JAZA", so "jaza ayala" also turns up a lot of results. TheCoffee (talk) 19:41, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I fail to see how his notability is established through the sources in the article. Source 1 is an interview about philanthropy, 2 is dead, 3 talks about his life, 4 says he got an Asian management award, 5 seems to be a wrong link. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 05:38, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, but barely - He's one of the richest people in the Philippines and is the owner of several major companies. This isn't a strong enough claim to notability, but systemic bias could come into play here, since he does get covered from time to time though, especially in news media. As for the sources that Raykyogrou0, sources 3 and 4 could actually establish notability (unless they aren't independent), and the award mentioned, if prestigious enough, might itself just be enough to be a claim to notability (that's a big if though, hence the "weak" part of my !vote) Note that he's also frequently referred to with the surname Ayala, so if applicable, any search for sources should take that into account. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 08:12, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment An interview about someone's life doesn't add to notability and would only be helpful if he was notable. Is the "Asian management" award really notable? Is it an Asian version of the Nobel prize or something? Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 08:42, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and strong move to Jaime Augusto Zobel de Ayala. Sources #3 and #4 should easily be enough to surpass WP:GNG, as these were pretty long features on this person, and we've previously kept articles where the sole reliable reference we got was based on half of a short news article. The part of WP:BIO where WP:GNG is referenced (WP:BASIC) states that "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." If we passed that, we do not necessarily have to use the other criteria on that page, which, TBH, isn't of much use to this guy.

We have two sources (multiple published secondary sources) in the article: Source #3 from the Philippine Star, and Source #4 of the Philippine Daily Inquirer. AFAIK, JAZA doesn't own newspapers, so it's secondary.

These are two separate (intellectually independent) newspapers, with separate articles written by different people.

These should easily pass WP:RS (reliable); I routinely use articles from these newspapers as references in WP:FLs and such.

These two newspapers are independent of the subject, unless of course JAZA bought an entire page for him since he has a lot of money (LOL). Plus, we have a picture of him at the World Economic Forum; I do not know of any other Filipino that went there who isn't a government official, and he isn't. Thai newspaper The Nation, when describing the members of the Asean Business Club advisory council of which JAZA is a part of, calls them "top corporate personalities in the region".

Finally, can anyone check out if JAZA did really win the Presidential Medal of Merit (Philippines)? If he won that then he should certainly pass WP:ANYBIO which states that a person is notable if "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor." Considering we have an article about the Presidential Medal of Merit (Philippines), that should mean that it is a "well-known and significant award or honor". –H T D 19:35, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that JAZA was awarded the Philippine Legion of Honor, a much higher award than the Presidential Medal of Merit, so he certainly passes WP:ANYBIO now. –H T D 19:43, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 03:19, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of business failures

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

Same rationale as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of business failures (2nd nomination) but that was closed as a keep for invalid rationales, as this list is a strongly subjective list without any potential for cleanup as "failures" is a word that fails WP:NPOV and original research, and businesses go out of business all the time Delete Secret ^account 19:44, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I would suppose it gets retitled to something NPOV, like List of shuttered businesses or List of former coporations. Just a thought. --Let Us Update Wikipedia: Dusty Articles 19:57, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "significant companies who met the eventual demise of their well-known brand"...that's far, far too vague to give any indication of what companies should go here. If there's consensus for a list similar to this, it should be reworked from scratch. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 20:02, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; this is hopeless. This list depends on the inherently subjective "significant" and "well-known". Also, what does "failure" mean? What happens when X is acquired by Y and re branded (is that a failure of the original brand?); what if the business was closed for non-financial reasons? What about a brand that was ended for business reasons unrelated to direct success (companies end product lines and subsidiaries all the time for numerous reasons). Any definition made generic enough to be objective, OTOH, would then be so inclusive as to include most corporations ever (there are many closed corporations than there are extant ones). — Coren ^(talk) 21:14, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 21:39, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As mentioned by Secret (talk · contribs), Coren (talk · contribs), "failures" is poorly defined, and the lead's mention of corporate crime implies certain things about the articles that might need to be better sourced. Listcruft. L Faraone 21:54, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Define "failure" in the context of this list? Pretty difficult. So is maintaining this article. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:25, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Take the article List of box office bombs. Note that this has the same premise as the nominated article, but it is way more organized, and offers explanations for why the films were not successful. We could transfer the same theory to this article. The problem with this article is that there is way too many examples listed, and no explanations to why they failed. It needs a good rewrite, but I think this article could be very well written. RomeEonBmbo (Talk) 21:10, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- First thing of all, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, second you can't compare that article to box office bombs because the issue with this is a hopelessly vauge and NPOV problem with the word "failure" and the topic (a list of businesses) a rename won't help in this problem. Secret ^account 23:17, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Pretty much per Howicus. The context of this list is much too vague. T C N7JM 23:23, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unmanageably overbroad topic with inherent inclusion issues. Carrite (talk) 01:50, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Could we take this example: List of defunct automobile manufacturers and spruce up the AFD'd article to be at or close to par with the list I linked, or should that be AFD'd as well? I know that OSE, but if this AFD'd article had the quality and worksmanship as the example article I linked (and possibly renamed to sound NPOV), would it not have been AFD'd in the first place? --Let Us Update Wikipedia: Dusty Articles 19:27, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment just deleted List of defunct companies a copy and paste duplication of subject article and a copyright violation, if this article is kept then please consider using move function, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 19:30, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 23:03, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

JetBlue Airways Flight 292

AfDs for this article:

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

Lack of notability per WP:Aircrash; WP:NOTNEWS; At best warrants a paragraph in the A320 accidents section as the occurrence was not uncommon, did not presage any changes in regulations or procedures and was a known problem which was already being addressed by the manufacturer. Previous arguments for retention were very weak and should not have been given credence over common sense. Petebutt (talk) 19:04, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:Aircrash, WP:NOTNEWS, not to mention WP:GNG. Fourth AfD. Wow. This topic has had extremely extensive secondary coverage from reliable sources, the very definition of WP:GNG. As for WP:NOTNEWS, that policy is, as it states clearly, is about "routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities." Not only is this topic nothing of a sort, it, per WP:NOTNEWS has had continued to get coverage years later in books and newspapers. [2][3][4][5]. Passes the non-guideline WP:AIRCRASH's "The accident or incident resulted in changes to procedures, regulations or processes affecting airports, airlines or the aircraft industry" as the NTSB, after extensive testing and research, determined that it was caused by fractured nosewheel lugs. Contrary to the nom's false statement that the problem was "already being addressed by the manufacturer," the NTSB states that Airbus (the manufacturer) "did not have a procedure that would have allowed the flight crew to reset the system and restore hydraulic pressure" and that "Airbus has since upgraded the system to take care of the problem" and that Airbus has made a design change to correct this issue as well as issued new flight crew procedures.[6][7] --Oakshade (talk) 23:34, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Oakshade's reasoning. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:42, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The incident has been the subject of continuing coverage in reliable sources. For example, in 2008 (three years after it happened), it was included as part of a case study in Essentials of Management. Similar references appear in Beyond the Checklist (2012), Software and System Safety (2012) and The AOPA Pilot (v.48,2005). These examples clearly speak to the lasting impact of the incident. Pburka (talk) 21:49, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Epicgenius (talk) 00:43, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 01:54, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with prejudice. Notability met via WP:Aircrash and WP:GNG; Oakshade's analysis presents the case for that compellingly. This was also not a typical crash because passengers were watching the coverage on TV on the plane—something that led to even more coverage of the crash in reliable sources. (Yes, I just said we should have an article about a flight because there are news articles about how passengers on the flight watched news stories about the flight during the flight.) This is the fourth AfD for this article: Of the three prior, two were keep, and one was no consensus. Notability is not fleeting, and based on discussion so far, it looks like there's consensus to keep. IMO, we'd need a major change in the notability policy before a fifth AfD should be contemplated. —C.Fred (talk) 01:08, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per C.Fred, Oakshade, Pburka, etc. I am invoking the snowball clause. Bearian (talk)
Keep - the fact that this resulted in design changes means it meets WP:AIRCRASH and is worth retaining on that basis alone. - Ahunt (talk) 20:18, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was AFD Withdrawn by nominator. --evrik ^(talk) 16:54, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Beach bunny

AfDs for this article:

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

This disambiguation page has no content to disambiguate. The list entries are either not named "beach bunny", or do not exist. Some appear far-fetched, such as Gidget, where the assertion that she is the "prototypical beach bunny" looks like original research. See generally WP:DAB for what disambiguation pages are for. Sandstein 18:12, 7 December 2013 (UTC) Withdrawn following cleanup. Thanks! Sandstein 18:09, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, First, during the original AfD, the comments were evenly split, between deletion AND keeping or moving the information to another page. When the discussion was closed, it was simply deleted. The other day, I was going to create a disambig page, and get the original information restored to an article. Yes, there are a couple of redlinks, but there are also links to:

Media related to Beach bunny at Wikimedia Commons and
The dictionary definition of Beach bunny at Wiktionary

The Gidget reference comes from the Gidget article itself, and is not OR, but simply a description of the character. I think this page should be kept and it does serve a purpose. --evrik ^(talk) 22:50, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't address that all the stuff you put in this page is what a dab page is explicitly not for, see WP:DABNOT. Dab pages are only for listing articles that share the same name. There are none such here. Sandstein 23:25, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The editing guideline you cited does also mention Combining terms on disambiguation pages which is considered okay. --evrik ^(talk) 17:10, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - While not every item on this disambiguation page belongs there, this is an editing matter. Valid DAB page, useful navigational function. Carrite (talk) 01:37, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, particularly now that that a couple of the redlinks have become bluelinks. Could use a spot of editing. Herostratus (talk) 04:54, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 00:16, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are at least ~~half a dozen~~ four legitimate (i.e. articles on topics called "beach bunny") things to disambiguate. Cnilep (talk) 00:13, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- NB: I have cleaned up the page to accord with MOS:DAB. There are now five blue links, plus one red link and one link to a list of short films that includes Beach Bunny. Cnilep (talk) 00:42, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but move to Beach bunny (disambiguation) and redirect this title to Surf culture#Beach bunny, the clear primary topic of the term. bd2412 T 16:26, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Keep per WP:SNOW. We can still redirect or move it later. Bearian (talk) 19:49, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment when I first posed to Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion#Beach_bunny it was to get the history restored so I could see what the article used to look like. Since it looks like the page will remain for now, would someone please restore the old history? Thanks. --evrik ^(talk) 15:44, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 23:03, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dark money

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

This article is a clear case of WP:NEOLOGISM, as it appears to meet nearly all of the criteria spelled out in that policy. The article is loaded with OR and is presently being used to legitimize insertion of the term into other articles in order to advance a position, much as WP:NEO warns. Recommend porting to Wikitionary. Roccodrift (talk) 17:54, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is far more than just a neologism; it is a political financing concept that has come into mainstream use in the media. Books have been written about it; Google has indexed 546,000 occurrences of it. It has been used by Mother Jones[8], Fox News[9], Huffington Post[10], The Nation[11], Talking Points Memo[12], The Hill[13], San Diego Reader[14], Los Angeles Times[15], Washington Post[16], Salon[17], Bloomberg[18], NBC[19], and MSNBC[20] to name a few. No doubt that this article has some original research in it, but the concept itself is well documented in reliable sources. We could call the article Hidden election contributions, Political money laundering, Kochtopus funds, Secret union contributions or any number of other things, but WP:COMMONNAME and WP:POVTITLE suggest that we should follow the common terminology that our sources use. - Mr X 19:12, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note That first ref, (the book) is does not use the term dark money. Nor does it define the term dark money. Capitalismojo (talk) 21:10, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 19:13, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this doesn't matter because the second, third and fourth books do, as do the sixth and so on. Let's not get hung up on an irrelevant detail. MilesMoney (talk) 21:38, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Adequate coverage at major journalistic sources--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 01:59, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The term is now being used on an anti-bi-partisan basis. Hcobb (talk) 18:39, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The real problem with the article itself is its NPOV & OR nature. (Perhaps it can be cleaned up.) The next problem is broader. As it is a popular media buzz word (or slang), using the term with wikilinks & "scare quotes" portends even more NPOV abuse. – S. Rich (talk) 20:28, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I meant to write this on the article talk page. Using (scare) quotes is a means of attributing the term to the source, so that it is not stated in Wikipedia's voice. - Mr X 20:37, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Send to Wikitionary As I understand WP:neologismSome neologisms can be in frequent use, and it may be possible to pull together many facts about a particular term and show evidence of its usage on the Internet or in larger society. To support an article about a particular term or concept we must cite what reliable secondary sources, such as books and papers, say about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term. I read that to mean that the Salon/WaPo/NBC refs above do not resolve the neologism policy issue. Given that, I'd suggest a move. Capitalismojo (talk) 21:04, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lets recall Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Capitalismojo (talk) 21:06, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – It's strongly referenced. MilesMoney (talk) 21:05, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Roccodrift is verifiably wrong: the term has been used for over 100 years, in numerous sources since, by many sides in the debate. The nominator appears to be a noobie who is unfamiliar with the broad reach of Wikipedia. Bearian (talk) 19:53, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Naturally, you're entitled to any opinion that suits you. But your rationale here is nonsense. Roccodrift (talk) 19:59, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In Rocco's defense, he's probably not a noob. MilesMoney (talk) 05:20, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Well sourced; objections are typical nonsense. — goethean 13:08, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There's only one viable, policy-based "keep" opinion, that by Green Cardamom; the other by Tom Ruen must be discounted because being an "active blogger, published author, and public speaker" are not among our inclusion criteria. And since Green Cardamom's arguments haven't convinced anybody else... Sandstein 10:42, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John Michael Greer

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

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 December 7. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 16:47, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 17:04, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 17:04, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article is self promotion about someone who is not notable. The article was created by someone who stopped posting on Wikipedia soon after the article was created; it has no reliable sources, and of the "sources" listed, one does not exist and the other two are websites about Greer; the article begins with a list of vague and meaningless titles; the bibliography is a long list of pamphlets with no page numbers. This whole article is an advertisement for Greer and likely written by Greer. Note, for example, the number of bibliography additions from earlier in 2013 from two url numbers, rather than a registered and frequent editor.Catherinejarvis (talk) 16:45, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article may or may not be crap, may need promotional links severely cut, may need verification for content, but that's not grounds for deletion. JMG is a active blogger, published author, and public speaker within the peak oil community as his inclusion in the peak oil template at the bottom. Tom Ruen (talk) 18:33, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Clearly does not pass notability requirements, sources are self-published or unreliable. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:31, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can see where he has received some coverage, but not enough to merit an article. Unfortunately all he's really gotten has been trade reviews. He has received some coverage from Midwest Book Review, but they have a bit of a dubious history at times ala Harriet Klausner. (In other words, people have reported that reviews from them are almost always glowing and considered to be sheer promotion as opposed to trade reviews from Publishers Weekly, who is often positive but not nearly to the degree of regularity of MBR.) It's enough to where I don't entirely consider them a RS. However even if we did, I only found about 2-3 reviews by them. They're considered a trade review site at best, and we need more than a handful of trade book reviews to show notability. I did find where Greer is quoted here, but that's not enough to show that he's extremely notable within his field. He's prolific, but he'd need to put out at least 3-4 times what he has now to qualify for that- and that's not always a solid guarantee for keeping an article. I have no problem if someone wants to userfy this, but Greer just doesn't pass notability guidelines right now. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:14, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:AUTHOR #3 multiple book reviews.

Docksai, Rick. "Is industrial civilization doomed?" The Futurist Mar.-Apr. 2010: 58+. Academic OneFile. Web. 8 Dec. 2013. Book review The Ecotechnic Future
Kaminsky, Paul. "Capital Reform." Alternatives Journal 37.4 (2011): 37+. Academic OneFile. Web. 8 Dec. 2013. Book review The Ecotechnic Future
Kaminsky, Paul. "The Wealth of Nature: Economics as if Survival Mattered". Alternatives Journal. Jul/Aug2011, Vol. 37 Issue 4, p37-38. 2p. Reviews Wealth of Nature
Beinhoff, L. A. Choice: Current Reviews for Academic Libraries. Jun2004, Vol. 41 Issue 10, p1857-1857. Book review Encyclopedia of the Occult
Sexton, David. "Speed Read" Evening Standard [London (UK)] 15 May 2012. Review of Apocalypse: A History of the End of Time
O'Meir, Olivia. "The Druidry Handbook". The Beltane Papers 39 (Winter 2006/2007): 59-60. Review of The Druidry Handbook.
Mittelstaedt, Martin. "Apocolypse", The Globe and Mail [Toronto, Ont] 06 June 2009. Contains 6 paragraphs about his book The Long Descent in a longer themed article.
Wilson, Steve. "The Wealth of Nature: Economics as if Survival Mattered". Library Journal. 6/1/2011, Vol. 136 Issue 10, p107-107. Reviews Wealth of Nature
"The New Encyclopedia of the Occult (Book)" Booklist. 2/15/2004, Vol. 100 Issue 12, p1091-1091. Reviews The New Encyclopedia of the Occult
T. H., "The Long Descent: A User's Guide to the End of the Industrial Age." Plenty. Aug/Sep2008, Issue 23, p61-61. Reviews The Long Descent
Reference & User Services Quarterly. Spring2005, Vol. 44 Issue 3, p218-219. Reviews Encyclopedia of the Occult
Dean, Katharine. "Reference That Rocks!!" American Libraries. May2005, Vol. 36 Issue 5, p37-40. Abstract: Presents the 2005 list of outstanding books from American Library Association's Reference and User Services Association. 22 books chosen for the outstanding reference sources of the past year includes The New Encyclopedia of the Occult.
Conant, F. P., Choice: Current Reviews for Academic Libraries. Aug2010, Vol. 47 Issue 12, p2370-2370. Reviews The Ecotechnic Future

The trade/library reviews are in small text, I figure they are acceptable as further evidence of notability, though not if every review was a trade. Seems to be more than a FRINGE topic. If there's promotion in the text that can be edited, since AfD is topic level not content or who created. -- GreenC 19:35, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - While the number of books written is impressive, I'm not seeing the slightest single anything in the first hundred returns of a Google for exact name counting to GNG. Carrite (talk) 01:42, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I removed Greer from Template:Peak oil to help see how widely he's cross-referenced in other wiki-article. One example is Valentin Tomberg, although its not clear what in that bio is referenced by Greer's book. Having a book referenced in a wikipedia article may not imply the author is notable, but if he's not notable for a short bio page, you might equally argue his books are not valid references for Wikipedia either. Tom Ruen (talk) 02:13, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- John Michael Greer, The New Encyclopedia of the Occult. p 488. Llewellyn Worldwide, 2003. ISBN 1-56718-336-0.

DELETE - I have two concerns, now that Tokypgirl79 has edited most of the piece. The first is that the article could be restored with all its puffery after the delete/keep debate is over; the second is the general sense of fakery about it: independent scholar, cultural critic, environmentalist, blogger. These can apply to anyone, including me. Can I get a separate Wikipedia page about myself? No. Closedthursday (talk) 17:21, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

I'm curious what happpens to the red links from this deletion? Does someone unlink them? [21] Tom Ruen (talk) 03:44, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 15:38, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria Garchitorena

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

Article fails notability for a politician. NoyPiOka (talk) 15:40, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 16:08, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 16:08, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~. She may well fail notability for a politician, but if she was a senior government official then she may qualify through that. How senior was her position as head of the Presidential Management Staff? It looks pretty important to me. Sort of like White House Chief of Staff maybe? Anyone know? -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:26, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per User:Howard the Duck below. I'm convinced this is a senior enough position to make the holder notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:59, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it seems that Presidential Management Staff (Philippines) is a cabinet-rank position; see List of Cabinets of the Philippines#Benigno S. Aquino III. This means she passes WP:POLITICIAN: "Politicians... who have held... national... office," although people who had served under this position haven't been politicians (ran for public office). –H T D 16:35, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Cher_Lloyd#2013:_Sorry_I.27m_Late. SarahStierch (talk) 01:26, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I'm Late (Cher Lloyd album)

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Sorry I'm Late (Cher Lloyd album)

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

Album fails per WP:ALBUMS and its notability guidelines. Album has no long-standing sources that can provide its notability to stand for an article right now. No official release date, no official tracklist, no chart history and no album cover are found for the album. In fact, it's still in the process of being recorded for a possible 2014 release, following a possible 2013 release. Cher Lloyd is not notable enough alone to have the article be in use. Tracklist on the page is fake, and completely false. The album's lead single "I Wish" has failed to make any major impact on U.S. and/or UK radio or charts, with an official UK release not even set in stone. Album's page should not be created and/or un-redirected until more reliable sources and notability can be found on it. The album is in no condition to have its own album page at this time. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 15:29, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 December 7. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 15:33, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; replace with redirect to Cher Lloyd. The only salvageable bit of the article is Lloyd's disclosure of the album title to Billboard, and that's already covered in the main article on Lloyd. Much of the rest of the history of the article is speculation on the tracklist. All of that is premature; Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. So, while the article history is not useful, the redirect is; that's why I say to replace the redirect after deletion, but the redirect should not be expanded to an article until the album clearly meets the notability requirements. —C.Fred (talk) 16:35, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But can't we just use what the redirects say to add into that page? --218.186.153.21 (talk) (User:Nahnah4) (talk • contribs)

Okay, Liveikemusic. Listen. If you go back to the page, you will see someone that brought back the page. It's Not Me! I know, I am Nahnah4 but I can't login to Wikipedia for some apparent reason via this computer, but you say the track listing is fake. Sure. To make you happy, that person deleted the whole track listing. Another page, Cheek to Cheek (album), the album cover is definitely fake. Why don't you nominate that page for deletion too? Then again, another page, Stampede of the Disco Elephants, has no definite release date, no album cover too. Why don't you ALSO nominate that page for deletion too? Please. I understand that it failed to uphold the rules of WP:ALBUMS, but, as what Livelikemusic has said, it has no chart history. However, the album is not even released so how can it even have chart history? Ok, let's make a deal. When the album is near the release date, we will then bring the page back, then insert the cover, release date and track listing. Ok. Is it ok? I mean, why do you want to delete that page for? The album, we already know, the name, and it is going to be released in 2014. Then, if the page is nearer to the release date, we will then put in all the stuff, and whatever. But as you say about the lead single I Wish, I don't get you. This is about Sorry I'm late. It is an album. Why are you talking about the lead single for? It seems like you are the only Wikipedian who ever edited that page to care about all this stuff. The others seems like they just write, add in stuff with sources,then it will be as complete as good articles! Thanks.--218.186.153.21 (talk) (User:Nahnah4) (talk • contribs) —Preceding undated comment added 07:47, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Other stuff exists. Whether or not other similar articles exist is not relevant to the discussion of whether this article should be kept or deleted; this discussion needs to focus on the merits, or lack thereof, of this article. —C.Fred (talk) 15:38, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cher Lloyd#2013: Sorry I'm Late. Fails WP:NALBUMS at this time. If it goes on to become notable, then of course it can be recreated. But in general, album articles like this, with so few reliable sources and very little information about the actual album, should be deleted or redirected. @Nahnah4: this discussion is about the Cher Lloyd album Sorry I'm Late, and other articles do not come into it, so the fact that other similar articles exist is not relevant to this discussion. –anemone projectors– 14:15, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 23:02, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

McFarland & Company

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

I don't see any indication of notability. All the sources are either self-published or entirely local. Rklawton (talk) 14:29, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What's your evidence that their books are self-published? Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:01, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No indication of notability? Unless I have them confused with another similarly-named book publisher, they're actually fairly prominent. If I can remember, I'll try to dig up references later. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:19, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is a legitimate company going back decades. A simple look at their website shows the serious nature of their work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Catherinejarvis (talk • contribs) 19:25, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just because an organization says that it is a leading publisher doesn't mean that it is a leading publisher. WP:CORP says "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." Where is that significant coverage? The company's website is not "significant coverage," or otherwise coretheapple.com could proclaim me as "the world's greatest living Wikipedian" and up goes the article. Coretheapple (talk) 20:11, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - reputable publisher with an extensive backlist. See this description from the North Carolina Sports Literature newsletter (a university publication) for a description of their operation. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:41, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In addition to the above, a 2012 Seattle Times article calls McFarland "a well-regarded source of books on baseball and chess". [22] --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:29, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete based on the three current sources (not including the company website, which doesn't count towards WP:CORP): the UNC ref (which is, frankly, fawning), the Mountain Times (press releases) and the Seattle Times article, the only RS in the lot. WP:VRS requires more than one. Miniapolis 01:58, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Policy simply requires a source to be reliable, it doesn't limit the opinions of the source to those in the middle of the road. A "fawning" article from a reliable source is still a citation from a reliable source, and cannot be discounted with a wave of the hand. Given that, there have been two citations from reliable sources presented. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:39, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree; WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. FWIW, I was ready to !vote "keep" until I realized that I couldn't, based on WP:VRS. All the best, Miniapolis 16:40, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, context matters, but the "context" is that it is a reliable source, the "fawning" review is not "context", it's content. Content is admissiable or not depending on the context it appears it, so the same kind of review coming from a non-reliable source (the context) would not be usable, while coming from a reliable source, it is. The content does not invalidate the context, unless there's evidence that the RS is simply re-printing a press release. We allow reliable sources to like things, just as we allow them to dislike and criticize them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:42, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note This page was nominated as a result of WP:Administrator's noticeboard/Incidents#Bookspam, which was semi-unrelated to this page itself. Whether this is a POINTy nomination or not remains to be seen. KonveyorBelt 02:49, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A publishing company with 50 employees is not small. They do have an extensive catalog, and at least their Beowulf and Film is, from personal observation, a pretty decent book on a decent academic level. If I choose to review the book I'll add the link. For now I will give them the benefit of the doubt: keep. Drmies (talk) 02:55, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - here's the problem: McFarland has some books in their stable that are valid, useful as RS's, and discussed in fine places everywhere. They also have a whackload of almost POD-type drivel that are only discussed at the author's family gatherings. So, the problem is that this article barely talks about that side of their business, which means that the casual observer would assume that if the source is from McFarland, it must be good, right? With balance, this could be an acceptable article. In its current state, it's near-puffery. ES &L 12:00, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Publishes also decent academic journals. If they also publish "POD-type drivel", there should be sources about that and it should be added to the article (actually adding to the notability...) --Randykitty (talk) 13:40, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Right--that's the funny thing, that joints like Lulu are more (easily) notable by our standards than real, legitimate companies. I still want to see evidence of PoD drivel. Drmies (talk) 14:44, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I went looking for such evidence and could not find it -- which doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. (It could mean that the legit publishing industry is reluctant to talk about that part of their business.) I did find a couple of writer's blogs which talked about having their first book self-published and their second book published by McFarland and what a big step up that was. McFarland may indeed inhabit an in-between place: not self-publishing, but not exactly a trade publisher either. Their website emphasizes that their niche is largely academic books and library sales, and they do charge authors for the preparation of the manuscript, but they are adamant that they do not charge for publication. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:21, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - According to the company's website:
      It does not cost anything to publish with McFarland. McFarland has not ever and will not ever take any payment or subvention from authors. You bear only the expenses of providing a complete manuscript (including any necessary illustrations and permissions). McFarland does not offer advances–the economic constraints of scholarly publishing make this impossible. We pay a good royalty.
      Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:37, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Credo, "McFarland... is a leading independent publisher of academic and nonfiction books... especially known for covering popular topics in a serious and scholarly fashion, and for going to great lengths to manufacture their books to meet high library standards." McFarland is a publisher that knocks out small print runs of niche, scholarly works aimed almost solely at libraries (much like the university presses) with - often - 3-figure price tags. As BMK says above, this isn't a publisher that trumpets about itself very much: it knows its product and it knows its market, and it has successfully brought the two together for the last 35 years. Blackberry Sorbet (talk • contribs) 15:38, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Staying with Credo Reference, just to add that I stumbled across this from them: "Credo General Reference, a core resource serving the research needs of millions of students and other library users will be enriched by the addition of top-quality content from McFarland. Chosen for their academic value and editorial excellence, these comprehensive reference titles provide compelling, relevant coverage on contemporary and historical topics... 'McFarland is an outstanding publisher with a significant number of award-winning reference titles,' commented John Dove, Credo Reference President." [23] Blackberry Sorbet (talk • contribs) 13:34, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. News articles such as this and this are examples of non-trivial, third-party coverage and attest to the company's productivity as a publisher. Super Mario Man 21:29, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

as *Keep significant publisher. In many subjects they are not a particularly high quality publisher, but some of their books are widely accepted, and present in hundreds of libraries. The GNG is pretty hopeless in either direction for publishers, and common snese is a better guide. DGG ( talk ) 22:15, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Well established academic publisher of books and journals. I'm puzzled by the nomination, this is the sort of material that should be in a comprehensive encyclopedia. If you wanna read that as a Keep advisement based upon our policy of Ignore All Rules (Use Common Sense), that's fine with me. Carrite (talk) 01:45, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'd been waiting for the nominator to provide some evidence of his claims, but he has not done so, despite repeating (and, indeed, hardening) his position on the related AN/I discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:58, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy close. This is being discussed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 December 4#12 Years a Slave (film)m. (non-admin closure) Peter James (talk) 19:33, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aphthous stomatitism

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

Zero Ghits for this term

I think it must have been an accidental redirect caused by a typo Lesion (talk) 14:09, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Previously raised here [24] with no action. Lesion (talk) 14:12, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close. Wrong venue. This belongs at redirects for discussion where the nomination is currently incomplete. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I thought the other discussion was historical since it is archived. There doesn't appear to be any comments on the other site, and I doubt there will be any now. Lesion (talk) 15:54, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't archived, it's just in a list that's collapsed because of it's length. Peter James (talk) 19:33, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Keep! If you're not happy with my closure, please take it to deletion review, thanks! SarahStierch (talk) 01:26, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John Diamond (doctor)

AfDs for this article:

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

This is a promotional article about a ~~quack~~ "holistic healer". It was created by a WP:SPA who WP:OWNs it. It's advertorial and there is no good evidence of the significance of the subject. Guy (Help!) 13:49, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- I think we should treat this individual as an wp:author. Superficially, they seem to have authored a number of books, the wikipedia article describes 2 as bestsellers, although this is unreferenced. If some of his books were indeed bestsellers, might be notable. I am not happy with "voting" keep unless the bestseller description can be reliably sourced. Lesion (talk) 15:39, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's no notability guideline for bestseller. There are bestseller authors who are non-notable, and non-bestselling authors who are. For a list of some reliability problems with "bestseller" see New_York_Times_Best_Seller_list#Criticisms. In short, "bestseller" is marketing often manipulated. -- GreenC 19:41, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per WP:FRINGE, fringe topics such as unevidence-based pseudomedicine can only notable if someone mainstream has dealt appropriate criticism rather than ignoring him. Wikipedia shouldn't be including this nonsense without appropriate criticism. Barney the barney barney (talk) 16:47, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is not really a fringe topic. This is a bio article... Lesion (talk) 16:57, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it's a fringe topic. There are several WP:REDFLAGs in the article and WP:FRINGE applies. Barney the barney barney (talk) 17:05, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is about an individual, not an alt med system. Lesion (talk) 17:13, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well I doubt we'll have a very good article if we concentrate on the individual, how he loves his wife, kids and dog, what his golf handicap is, and whether he prefers aussie rules, rugby or league, and other personal things that don't make him notable. I suspect therefore main content should be about his views on medicine, and apparently on how that medicine shouldn't be based on evidence, but on woo. That makes it a WP:FRINGE, clearly. Barney the barney barney (talk) 17:33, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I went through the article again to double check. There is very little content that is about the alt med system this individual is involved with, most content is directly related to him. I don't think there is any coatrack issue here. We should be discussing whether or not the individual is notable for a bio article, not deleting this page because we disagree with the alt med system he is associated with. Really you are voting to delete applied kinesiology, not this page, do you see? Lesion (talk) 18:35, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But that's nonsense. Per WP:REDFLAG you can't present nonsensical content uncritically, even if that content is "Johnny Doctor is an author of 17 books on "alternative" medicine, here's a list. He also has a "medical" practice where you can receive "medical treatment"". We have WP:MEDRS. Applied kinesiology is kept because unfortunately it is a nonsensical subject that people believe in, and which has been addressed by the forces of DBSFS. Barney the barney barney (talk) 21:25, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We do not determine notability for bio articles according to whether you consider the topic they are associated with "so fucking stupid". You have not presented any legitimate reason to delete this bio article, and you seem to be failing to get the point on this issue. This is a bio article about someone (imo) whose primary potential notability is as an author. We should judge notability according to GNG and specifically WP:author. I particularly would like to see reliable source for the "bestselling books" comment, which arguably would indicate wp:author is satisfied, not sure how others feel. Lesion (talk) 21:42, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MEDRS is not intended for bio articles. If this article were a coatrack, making health claims, then those claims should be removed, rather than requiring them to be sourced according to MEDRS. Lesion (talk) 21:42, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is making claims. The claim that pseudomedicine is being practised, with the implication that it is effective, is a WP:REDFLAG WP:MEDRS claim. Trying to treat people based on practices that show no efficacy in gold standard double-blind placebo controlled trials while invoking nonsensical unscientific principles to support the prescription of said treatment is stupid. Barney the barney barney (talk) 21:55, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Upon third reading, I could not find any health claim. Please copy and paste here the part of the article you feel constitutes a health claim, thank you. Lesion (talk) 02:13, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. While he may well not be notable, I think it's a little out of order to refer to a qualified doctor and psychiatrist as a "quack". This is a term usually used to refer to someone who claims to be a doctor but isn't. While he may embrace alternative views, Diamond does appear to be a genuine doctor. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:07, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think quack has any strict definition. I think it is often applied to genuine doctors (i.e. people with a medical degree) who don't hold mainstream beliefs. Lesion (talk) 08:25, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete- I also think this should be judged under wp:author. I've been unable to find any decent coverage of any of the "bestsellers", but would happily change my vote if any could be produced. Passing mention here Keep Hard to argue with the "widely cited by peers or successors" part of wp:author.Doctorhawkes (talk) 10:23, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep User:DGG listed sources in the first AfD 4 years ago. The coverage in Google Books is pretty intensive though I have not filtered each one for Fringe status it's sometimes a gray area. The author is best known as the inventor of Behavioral Kinesiology and book of the same name later re-published as Your Body Doesn't Lie. -- GreenC 20:05, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as I said earlier. No source is perfect or wholly reliable. although the NYT Bestseller list can be manipulated, it sis still the best such list available for the US.Of course this is fringe, but the fact that something is fringe or even pseudoscience is no reason not to cover it when it can be covered objectively. I would be reluctant to accept an article on his theory, but he can still be considered objectively as an author. DGG ( talk ) 21:30, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is that the cited sources are either trivial or not independent. I actively follow quackery, and have never come across a mention of this guy. I fund him only accidentally through the link from the much more notable late husband of Nigella Lawson. I have every issue of the UK quack magazine "What Doctors Don't Tell You" (because it's bollocks), I find a scattering of namechecks and no substantive coverage. A smerge to applied kinesiology might work though. Guy (Help!) 00:03, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable fringe theorist, per DGG and WP:FRINGE. Bearian (talk) 19:57, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am the article's primary editor. Dr. Diamond is certainly notable as an author - his book "Your Body Doesn't Lie" is currently at #43,731 in Books on Amazon, and it was written in 1979, showing the perennial influence of his kinesiological writings. It is also currently at #77 in Books > Medical Books > Basic Sciences > Physiology on Amazon (see here). And furthermore it is listed at #39 on Tower Books "Top 100 Alternative Therapies Bestsellers" (see here). Also, Banyen Books (a sizable and reputable "metaphysical bookstore") lists it as a "Banyen Bestseller" (#41 on the site) and a "Great Classic" (see here and here).

Here are a few notable newspaper and periodical references to one aspect of his work with music (listed by DGG in first AfD):

1. The music critic Schonberg in the NY Times "Keep away from the musical note "C," warns kinesiologist Dr. John Diamond in a new book. He says that anybody exercising to music ..." NY Times

2. Chicago Tribune

3. LA Times

4. Marie-Claire

5. And a fascinating article in Stereophile.

In addition to the links above, which refer to major newspapers and periodicals, a significant amount of matter from respected publishers can be found through a Google Books search, eg:

http://books.google.com/books?id=ifquDz9Po6cC&lpg=PP1&pg=PA71#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=Z6HZTBVxJ-0C&q=john+diamond#v=snippet&q=john%20diamond&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=79ZWoymp2VsC&q=john+diamond#v=snippet&q=john%20diamond&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=G555GaAf_78C&q=%22john+diamond%22#v=snippet&q=%22john%20diamond%22&f=false

If you do not consider that these references, plus what is in the article, suffice to establish notability, can you please help to clarify what would for an article of this sort?

Regarding two of the references in the article, the Price-Pottenger Nutrition Foundation is certainly well established, and "AK: The International Journal of Applied Kinesiology and Kinesiologic Medicine" is the premier kinesiology journal.

Any help or suggestions would be appreciated - though I do not think deletion is warranted, the article could certainly use improvement.

-----

In response to Bearian's recent edits to the page:

Dr. Diamond is a registered medical doctor in New York State, which can be easily verified here and through the AMA. I would appreciate if Bearian would fix the relevant passages (lead sentence, infobox occupation, last line of fourth paragraph), as they distort the article while it is under evaluation.

Further, I believe that the new lead sentence does not follow the principle to "prefer nonjudgmental language" as per WP:YESPOV. I believe the word "fringe" is highly loaded, as, to a lesser degree, is the entire second half of the sentence.

-----

And in response to the secondary claims of Guy (which are not relevant to the notability of Dr. Diamond):

As per WP:OWN - "Provided that contributions and input from fellow editors are not ignored or immediately disregarded, being the primary or sole editor of an article does not constitute ownership." I have not ignored or immediately disregarded other editor contributions - on the contrary, it can been seen that I have welcomed many edits and suggestions (as can be seen in the page history), and confined disagreements to the talk page.

Regarding the claim that my account is an SPA, I have been open regarding my strong interest in the subject of this article. That being said, I have also made positive contributions to the following pages:

Talk:Symphony No. 9 (Beethoven)

Moses Montefiore

Applied kinesiology

The Boy in the Plastic Bubble

Graham Cairns-Smith

Talk:Humphrey Bogart

Hughie Cannon

Marty_Robbins_discography

File:Red_Cloud3.jpg

Regards, AKD157 (talk) 18:18, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Coney Island. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:11, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bowery Street

AfDs for this article:

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

Article is about an extremely tiny, insignificant street, which looks more like a pedestrian walkway, in Coney Island, Brooklyn. I have found absolutely nothing notable about it at all. It was originally a redirect to the street called Bowery in Manhattan, but later converted to an article and based on what I'm seeing in the first AfD, this is apparently the second time has happened (i.e. someone, probably the same editor, created this redirect before it was made to an article by an IP user, also probably the same person, citing that "Bowery Street" and "Bowery" are two very different, unrelated streets). As with the first AfD, a redirect would not be appropriate because I have never heard of anyone ever calling the Manhattan street "Bowery Street." It is simply called "Bowery" or "The Bowery" and this is an unneeded search team anyway. The creator of this redirect needs to realize that and the IP, if he's still here, should know that there is a Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion where redirects can be nominated for deletion instead of turning them into articles about something un-notable. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 13:46, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 December 7. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 13:47, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge with Coney Island. Epicgenius (talk) 23:22, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, and merge if needed, per Epicgenius. Bearian (talk) 20:06, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SarahStierch (talk) 01:26, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Volodar

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

Article appears to be a self-promotion of a musical group of questionable notability since Google just shows mirrors of EN:WP. Ajh1492 (talk) 13:08, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Page was created by User:Folk Volodar which ONLY created the page, no other edits or actions. This definitely looks like someone using EN:WP to game the big search engines (Google, etc.) Ajh1492 (talk) 13:11, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The initial editor of the article User:Folk Voldar admits in a edit to another talk page that I am the sales manager of folklore ensemble «Volodar» which has sung these compositions.. Ajh1492 (talk) 14:10, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Ajh1492 (talk) 13:13, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:ARTIST requirements for notability in musicians/bands.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:31, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This group is not notable. A Google search didn't yield any reliable sources, and not many mentions at all. It also fails WP:NOTADVERTISING. TCMemoire (talk) 16:50, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7. Bbb23 (talk) 20:58, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ambilikuttan

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

Article asserts that a person of this name (please note that mononyms are very common in Indian Cinema) is a "famous Playback singer in Malayalam cinema." If that was so, there would be ample evidence for this in the English language Indian press and the usual go-to websites for films. There appears to be nothing of the sort. Shirt58 (talk) 12:36, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - previously deleted page as CSD#A7, no difference in this one. Alex^{discussion ★} 20:21, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 08:10, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great American Group, Inc.

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

No encyclopedic notability . Refs are all essentially focussed on other firms, DGG ( talk ) 22:16, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Clarkcj12 (talk) 02:41, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - Lacks significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Of the references in the article, only one represents significant coverage. LA times. I as unable to find any other coverage beyond that provided in the article, but they do put out an awful lot of press releases. I suspect that there may be additional coverage out there as they have handled some very big bankruptcies, but I am unable to find such coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 21:57, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:15, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 08:11, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John Ronan (poet)

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

WorldCat shows that none of his books have more than 8 copies in any library. The awards are totally inconsequential. Local refs for a writer of this low readership are PR or indiscriminate coverage of local people. DGG ( talk ) 21:48, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Having trouble finding sources that are about Ronan and independent of Ronan. The awards are not high enough to meet ANYBIO. The play The Yeats Game has promise with these reviews:[25][26][27][28] but I don't believe they are enough as most of these are local to Mass, except the one from NY. Unable to find reviews for any other works that are not local press. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 03:15, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:14, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 08:13, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MWP Advanced Manufacturing

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

Not a demonstratably notable journal, given sources are all primary, couldn't find any coverage other than affiliate links Prof.Haddock (talk) 18:47, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:20, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Some sourcing about the MWP Award given by the magazine but it's primary mostly (winners announcing they won). Seems like it should be notable but having trouble finding independent sources. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 21:26, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:14, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 08:15, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lynne Bernbaum

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

From my research, she fails Wikipedia's WP:ARTIST guidelines. Seems like she's doing good locally, but, most of the coverage I'm discovering is from very tiny non notable sources or mere mentions. SarahStierch (talk) 18:17, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nominator S a g a C i t y (talk) 20:39, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 20:50, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:14, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 23:02, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Escafil device

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

This does not establish notability independent of Animorphs through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 18:11, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No other option. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 22:45, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:13, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Could also be redirected to the parent article, but I'm not really sure I see the point. If someone later wants to create a redirect, they're free to do so. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:22, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- part of a large walled garden of Animorphs cruft, consisting mainly of in-universe plot summary and containing no reliable sources. Reyk _YO! 08:12, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of primary schools in Hong Kong. SarahStierch (talk) 01:26, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NPMPS

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

Primary school with no claim to notability except for two "famous alumni", a certain Gregory and Ivana Kelly, neither of whom I've been able to identify. See WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 15:49, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of primary schools in Hong Kong. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:21, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:12, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Banda Singh Bahadur. Merge away! SarahStierch (talk) 01:27, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of Banda Singh Bahadur

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

The articile Banda Singh Bahadur already exists. This is an unreferenced article that could easily be incorporated in the main article. SH 10:44, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article is purely referenced article and have sufficient data to become an independent article. The points of contention was removed as article was still in construction mode. Rather then marking it delete, put it on halt if you need detail lines and translation from sources. Even many lines are quoted from sources but these are simply ignored. Which references you need? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.110.241.231 (talk) 10:47, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Banda Singh Bahadur#Criticism. Much of this article consists only of quotations (so it borderlines on copyright vio) that should be summarized and added to the parent article. This article will give the criticism undue weight and is not sufficiently long enough to warrant a split. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:05, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The tone of article was tried to go like : Criticism of Muhammad, but one of contributor removed points of contentions and one of sources. Other then that more sources could be quoted with some contemporary and historians like Karam Singh who exposed this anti khalsa personality. If it could be merger then all points of contention should be mentioned with all sources given or quoted in at least references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.173.217.32 (talk) 14:31, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sikhism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article should be again put under construction, if Wikipedia required detail information on sources. Other then that points of contentions should not be removed, reinserting points of contention with sources. The Buddha Dal and Tat Khalsa have all points by critics. It will meet criteria of articles like Criticism of Christ or Criticism of Muhommad.

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:12, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Banda Singh Bahadur. We don't host "Criticism of X" articles just for the hell of it and certainly not when it basically amounts to giving prominence to sectarianism etc. If nothing else, as with dedicated "criticism" or "controversy" sections in main articles, they are POV magnets and tend to lead to distortion and imbalance.
This article in its various forms has consisted mostly of long quotes from sources written 150 years or more ago and which thus are basically WP:PRIMARY commentaries that fall well below the standard that is proposed by WP:HISTRS. The gist of those quotes is constant, being mostly criticism for tactical decisions, womanising and for egotism. What we really need are paraphrases of secondary sources that discuss the issues & those seem to be hard to come by. Where they do exist, they should be incorporated into the prose of the main article, eg: a discussion of his surrender with 700 men at hand does not need to go in a "criticism" section but rather in a section discussing the military engagement itself or his military tactics in general. Frankly, without better sourcing there isn't anything much to merge at present but I'm going to do some more digging. - Sitush (talk) 14:38, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 08:18, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Young Generation (YG)

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

This article discusses what age defines "youth population" in South Korea. There is no need for separate article. This topic is can be adequately covered through other articles. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:55, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this seems to be adequately covered in Presidential committee on young generation. I don't see this as a useful redirect. -- Whpq (talk) 21:40, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisting comment: seems to be on its way to deletion, but let us try one more week.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:28, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter (talk) 09:28, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is but one context-specific use of the term, already adequately covered in that context article, as noted by User:Whpq above. AllyD (talk) 09:55, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 08:22, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cezar Consing

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

Appears not to be WP:NOTABLE; part of a series of seemingly promotional articles by WP:Single-purpose account, User:Towerone.control.1. Boleyn (talk) 08:48, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yay adverts. Delete Neonchameleon (talk) 09:56, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: A man with a job, which was sourced only to a routine article noting his appointment on retiral of his predecessor. I have added another reference to his earlier career, but all I find is routine job announcements, which even in sum fall short of the depth of coverage to demonstrate biographical notability. AllyD (talk) 10:08, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 11:50, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 11:50, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails general notability guideline. NoyPiOka (talk) 00:20, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:41, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Molly McQueen

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

While this song indicates notability, its indication - having a top ten hit on the UK Dance Chart - is not enough to indicate notability per the relevant policy, WP:MUSICBIO criterion #2, which demands that it has been ranked on "a country's national music chart". Laun chba ller 22:44, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:50, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:50, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:14, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 05:45, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This appears to be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Not currently notable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:42, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR Mark Arsten (talk) 01:02, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Worsteling

AfDs for this article:

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

promotional article with unclear notability DGG ( talk ) 21:15, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:37, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:37, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:37, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:37, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep same as last time: he is the main host of a show on a major televison network (see online guide) that has been nominated for a major award (Logie Award, the (first fishing program to be nominated for that award indicates that it IS the premier fishing show in Australia). Article needs to be cleaned up and de-advertorialised, but that isn't grounds for deletion. Not everything is on google, this article from 2005 indicates that he's been hosting it for a long time. The-Pope (talk) 23:16, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Winning a sign ificant award shows notability , but merely being nominated for one does not. DGG ( talk ) 19:26, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:18, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 05:45, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Closed with no prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:22, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Snow World Mumbai

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

Inadequately referenced article about a minor theme park that opened a little more than a year ago. The only sources that were able to find were press releases and promotional coverage such as this. Fails WP:ORGDEPTH. - Mr X 19:14, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 19:17, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:36, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:27, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 05:44, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stubify - I see no reason to delete this information but it should be stubbed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmedema (talk • contribs) 19:50, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:41, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rotary Ramble

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

Local charity event, no non-local coverage DGG ( talk ) 04:27, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 05:43, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 06:07, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom: this is a worthwhile but modestly-sized event which is unlikely to have attracted significant coverage, especially outside Perth. Nick-D (talk) 09:16, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 23:01, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PeoplePerHour

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

advertisement for an advertising site. Refs are either totally general rather than about the company or pure PR. Inclusion in a list of fastest growing, usually translates as "not yet notable". DGG ( talk ) 17:46, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it's a website that allows freelancers to find work, established for quite a number of years. I must say I get very annoyed by articles about web ventures who only get attention when they start-up. But in this case the website is getting significant coverage in major newspapers. I'd discount the Business Insider, which is clearly not 'reliable'; I can't access the FT article either, so am trusting that it is more than a name-check. However, there still remains a consistent level of coverage which pushes it over the WP:GNG and WP:NCORP threshold. I don't see 'advertising' either - the article is written quite conservatively and succinctly. Sionk (talk) 19:29, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 05:38, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think DGG is considering all start-ups non-notable, which is too undiscerning. PPH has seen coverage by the BBC for example here. Its Wikipedia article could make the claim to notability more prominent, for example The Sunday Telegraph described it as "Europe's biggest marketplace for online companies" [29]. Also gets seriously pimped by Financial Times in more than one article [30]. Someone not using his real name (talk) 13:40, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete The arguments provided by both parties are (save for a couple of exclusions) sensible and reasonable, but the arguments of those in favour of deletion are more persuasive and the policies they quote are more important, there is consensus here that there are problems with verifiability and that sourcing was not up to scratch, and nobody suggested that could be fixed. I'm also persuaded by the suggestion it's something that might fit in with another site, such as Wikia and will be happy to provide content to whoever requires it to move it to another site. Nick (talk) 00:45, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Yu-Gi-Oh! cards

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

This list is a mixture of plot details and overly descriptive game information. There are no reliable, third party sources providing real world information to establish overall notability for the topic, so this is something better suited to Wikia. If a specific card is relevant to the description of something in the plot, it should be briefly described there, and I cannot imagine needing to link to a certain card for gameplay purposes on a general encyclopedia. TTN (talk) 17:54, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the game is notable, a list of cards is simply not encyclopedic and fails WP:NOT#INFO Secret ^account 20:07, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You fail to provide evidence to support your assertion. See WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC which explains why this is an empty argument. Warden (talk) 20:36, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- It's not a IDONTLIKEIT assertion Secret ^account 18:24, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic is notable per WP:LISTN, being documented in detail in sources such as Trading Card Games for Dummies. Warden (talk) 20:36, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While notability is not inherited, longstanding consensus is that if X is notable, list of [elements of X] is an appropriate list, to keep each element from having a single article, and provide a single place for collecting information. Yu Gi Oh is quite clearly notable, and no policy-based reason for deleting the list of elements (because Yu Gi Oh is a card game) has been advanced. Jclemens (talk) 21:22, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:INHERITED can someone please explain to me how each card is notable here? The topic Yu-Gi-Oh! Trading Card Game is notable, the cards themselves dont seem to be. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:13, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From the article: "The following is a list of notable cards that are in the Yu-Gi-Oh! Trading Card Game. The cards listed are notable for their relevance to the anime and manga of the same name, its three spin-off series, Yu-Gi-Oh! GX, Yu-Gi-Oh! 5D's, and Yu-Gi-Oh! Zexal, and the real-life card game" Okay then if the cards are notable then where are the additional sources? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:27, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They don't need to be notable per WP:FICT#Lists of fictional elements since they are elements in a fictional work (both the anime and manga). Remove the word notable from the lead if that is causing an issue. VMS Mosaic (talk) 00:18, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - largely per WP:IINFO. The article is also absurdly long and should be split into sub articles. If that were to be done I think it would be easy to see that the list(s) does not stand up to scrutiny. Samwalton9 (talk) 00:02, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article aids in the understanding of a notable franchise, just as List of Pokémon and List of Pokémon Trading Card Game sets help understand that franchise. Each Pokemon is in fact just a playing card in the game. Same thing here. Just think about it like a character list, which all notable series have. Dream Focus 01:16, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Be careful not to argue on the grounds that Other Stuff Exists. Samwalton9 (talk) 01:26, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Characters from a series are not material items and the lists there help trim down excessive plot details for a series, if you want to merge the cards here to the character list or merge the more notable cards to Yu-Gi-Oh! Trading Card Game then yes I would support that. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:43, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep List of cards that are an essential part of a notable series --BigPimpinBrah (talk) 22:51, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The series is notable, the card game is notable, it does not make the cards themselves notable. The article pretty much contains just plot details. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:46, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons given by others. VMS Mosaic (talk) 09:03, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The other reasons are WP:OSE and WP:ILIKEIT arguments - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:52, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reasons to keep include WP:FICT#Lists of fictional elements which states that the list elements do not have to be notable individually. I believe it does apply here given that the list includes usage in the anime and manga. VMS Mosaic (talk) 00:12, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I Use this quite a lot, it's great to use, but for noting what deck I should make next in the real card game Titusfox Lives... 16:49, 5 December 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Titusfox (talk • contribs)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 05:36, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:FICT is an essay. The cards themselves are not notable. I don't see any evidence that this satisfies WP:LISTN, and all the sources are primary. Wikia was made for this sort of article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:33, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - My argument is much simpler in that the list has a fair amount of original research and the references that are provided are broken or do not provide the verifiability that is needed for any article... list or not. There are no inline citations or reliable sources. The companys that provide the cards, media and the Wikia (that already exists) cannot be used as the sources that hold this list up to Wikipedia standards. - Pmedema (talk) 22:28, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Overly detailed and excessively long list. "Wikipedia is not a rulebook" seems an appropriate way to interpret Wikipedia:Not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_manual.2C_guidebook.2C_textbook.2C_or_scientific_journal. The article is heavy on trivia and original research but light on reliable sources, and is creeping into WP:NOTDIR territory as well. Reyk _YO! 07:33, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This list is notable. It only includes well known cards, like the Sacred ones, i.e. Exodia and The God Cards. Its very similar to a list of characters, but for Major cards. 04:33, 9 December 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.119.110.249 (talk)
keep Some cards are documented and discussed in third-party sources [31] (which provides more than just prices) and [32] clearly count and there were a few others that might in the first two pages of a book search. I'd prefer the list be trimmed or broken out, but eh. Hobit (talk) 16:33, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of notability and inadequate sourcing. While some cards may have been covered in reliable third-party sources, the great majority has not been, at least not to an extent that would support most of the content of the article, as can be seen from the meagre and often unreliable references. And it's the potential for verifying article content, quite lacking here it seems, that's behind our sourcing-based concept of notability. Sandstein 10:37, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If some of the cards have third party independent sources (and they do...) and the rest can be verified by primary sources (which would seem to be trivial) doesn't that mean that meeting WP:V on this topic is trivial? And in any case, we don't require lists where every element of the list needs to have an independent source. I'm not sure how either of your points apply here. Hobit (talk) 18:55, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Seeing that the sources used are price guides how would you work in the ones you call notable to make them sound not like a game guide? (WP:GAMEGUIDE). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:37, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Because Most card game websites provide the price, but not what the card does. User:titusfox TF Titusfox Lives... 16:27, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you give a valid rationale in keeping this article please? Secret ^account 18:24, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LISTN, WP:NOTDIR, WP:V, WP:NOTINHERITED. The nearest I found to a source addressing the group or set itself was http://www.pojo.com/yu-gi-oh/FeaturedWriters/Ryoga/index.shtml. That's not WP:SIGCOV. As the content doesn't seem to attributable to reliable sources, even a merge isn't worth considering. Is all the info already included on wikia? -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 21:11, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The question here is not whether each individual card is notable (some appear to be), nor is it whether the game itself is notable (it clearly is). Per WP:LISTN (which has been incorrectly interpreted and linked to multiple times during this discussion), the question is whether the grouping/set of cards itself is notable. So far that answer appears to be no, and so far no one asking for this article's preservation has brought forth evidence (in the form of multiple reliable sources) to show otherwise. To metaphorically illustrate what I'm saying: We have an article on the game Monopoly, as the game itself is relevant. But, we do not have a list of Monopoly property, chance, or community chest cards, since those sets are not independently notable from the game and do not have an independent (from the game) parent article. As many others have said, this is probably perfect material for Wikia... and if it's not there already it should be. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:41, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:40, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rich Newberg

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable broadcaster; article fails WP:CREATIVE. Only source is an alumni quarterly. Station bio indicates subjecxt was multiple winner of local New York Emmys, but these are not major awards such as are contemplated by WP:ANYBIO. Article was previously nominated for deletion but discussion was derailed by nominator being a sockpuppet. Coretheapple (talk) 20:37, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:39, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:39, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:39, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:40, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 05:35, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Couldn't find anything other than a few local news stories that he has reported on, nothing about him per se. Jinkinson talk to me 00:09, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 07:05, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Treacher

AfDs for this article:

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

This is part of a group of inter-related articles (check the see also section). Some are or may be notable, but this one isn't. Only significance at all is a very minor single event. DGG ( talk ) 05:33, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 06:11, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 06:11, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:29, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:29, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:30, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E. Not notable for anything outside of the 'Obama Eats Dogs' meme. Gobōnobō ⁺ ^c 23:28, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:1EVENT (BLP1E might not technically apply since the person is seeking publicity and thus not low profile trying to protect privacy). -- GreenC 20:09, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The meme in which he is supposedly notable does not have all that much coverage or certainly no lasting effects. Mkdw ^talk 00:27, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Per WP:SK#1, the nominator has withdrawn their deletion nomination, and there are no outstanding delete !votes. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 22:27, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dalitstan.org

AfDs for this article:

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

Website is down for a long period now. So the page seems to be promotion of something which is no more around, contradictory to WP:PROMOTION, than some kind of encyclopedia. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:21, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 06:17, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:28, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep This obviously meets our criteria for notability which is why the last 2 AfDs failed. I simply do not understand why this was nominated for deletion. The fact that it doesn't exist anymore has nothing to do with the issue of notability. There are some good sources that can be used to expand the article, I've mentioned 2 on the talk page and added text from one of them (by a Reader at a London University who has 4 pages of it in his book Hindu Nationalism in India and the Politics of Fear. Dougweller (talk) 14:35, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Still, it's promotion of something that doesn't exists, and not even historical. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:46, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question I remember this being discussed before—after all, the article came up today in my watch list, so I must have seen it —but I'm not finding deletion discussions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dalitstan.org (2nd nomination) and, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dalitstan.org. Wikipedia obviously isn't finding them either, since the list-of-discussions box to the right lists only this discussion. Where are they, so that I can review them? —Largo Plazo (talk) 14:51, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I found them. I think what happened was the page got moved from Dalitstan to Dalitstan.org, so while the article got renamed, none of the deletion discussions changed their names. I have redirected the deletion links above so they'd turn blue and appear in the box. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 15:04, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:09, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Bladesmulti, what do you mean when you say the article is "promotion" of the website? Most of the content in it appears to be critical of the website. —Largo Plazo (talk) 14:54, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Yep, it was well established that this website met notability criteria, and it isn't promotional. There has been no change since then that would occasion a further round of consideration. Even if the website is gone, WP:Notability is not temporary. —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:11, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment : Anyways, 2 opinions are enough for now. I take this nomination back, admin Dougweller can close if possible. Bladesmulti (talk) 06:28, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:38, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

L5 (miniseries)

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

A crowdfunded sci-fi mini-series uploaded to a video distribution website. Article not cited to relaible secondary sources and I can't see any suitable sources online. Clear failure of WP:GNG. Sionk (talk) 02:18, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't really find anything to show that this miniseries really gained any true notice. There is the GFR blog entry, but the problem is that it's ultimately a blog entry and I can't find anything to show that this blog has an editorial process that would cause it to be considered a RS. Even if it did, that's just one source and we need more than that. Its Kickstarter was successful, but not so wildly successful that it'd gain notice from anyone on that front. This might be speedyable under WP:A7, since it looks to be a web based series and might fall under that qualification. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:28, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment: A bit pre-emptive to call this a "miniseries" as it has only one episode which has been released, or to suggest an A7 speedy as it somewhat sourcable. I have added a modified set of findsources above. I checked out the trailers, and this one looks quite professional and high caliber for its limited budget. Let's see if it has received attention. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 10:21, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:54, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:37, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lily Adamczyk

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

Appears to fail Wikipedia's WP:ARTIST guidelines. SarahStierch (talk) 02:16, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't tell how notable the awards are but they seem like local or regional, not major awards. Very little news coverage in Google News. Few media archives on the artist's website. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 08:52, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:54, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No strong opinions in the discussion, but no keeps, even weak keeps, either, all voters are in good standing, and the arguments are pretty much elaborate, so I guess we should delete the article. No prejudice against recreation if better/more sources have been found.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:59, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Abgott

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

Appears to fail WP:ARTIST. I could, of course, be wrong. Lovely art though! SarahStierch (talk) 02:13, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Sourcing is not great though this source says: "one of the premiere watercolor artists in the country and served as the 2006 president of the Florida Watercolor Society—the largest such guild in the country." Not sure how reliable "Mountain Times" is for such pronouncement but there it is. Otherwise not really finding much beyond local Florida pieces. Update: was in Best of Watercolor, 2010. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 08:30, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment From Proquest, the article is "MUDDY COLORS ARE THE ENEMY OF EVERY WATERCOLORIST, BUT ANNE ABGOTT HAS DEVELOPED WAYS OF KEEPING MUD AT BAY AND CREATING VIBRANT COLORS" by Price, Linda S. Watercolor10.39 (Summer 2004): 104-113. Proquest ID212416001 :I've read it --it is predominantly a very detailed article about her technique, and contains reproductions of all or part of about 10 works (mostly still lifes and birds) It contains no information about exhibits or museum collections. 'DGG (at NYPL)' (talk) 19:13, 2 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:54, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

She's borderline. Wow, WP:ARTIST is pretty strict, so let's look at WP:BIO. We have here a full-length feature which is about the subject (not just her work) which is what we're looking for. If it was in the LA Times she'd be in. But it's the Bradenton Times, which is online-only; Bradenton is a middling city and I gather people mostly read the Sarasota and Tampa papers. That's it for material that's much about the subject. The rest of the media isn't substantial coverage of the subject. The Mountain Times piece is typical: here's an artist, she's giving an exhibit, here's a couple-few boilerplate sentences about her. And the Mountain Times is a weekly in Boone, North Carolina. The Sarasota Herald-Tribune is a real print daily in a city I've heard of and has Wikipedia article. But the piece is just a brief announcement of an exhibit at a private studio. The Orlando Sentinal calls her "highly acclaimed" and, oddly, calls her book a "#1 best seller", which I wonder what they mean by that. But it's just a notice of a workshop, or maybe even an ad. Everything else appears to be like that, or else is in a specialized publication.

You could slice this two ways: She's got a feature-length interview/bio, in a real (online) publication with real editors and stuff. On top of she's mentioned in the Sarasota paper and the Orlando paper and also a bunch of other places. And she's a published author. And FWIW her stuff is good which is a positive marker for continued growth of reputation.

Or, she's got nothing, except basically press-release-type notices that's she's giving a workshop or an exhibit (at a small venue, not a museum or big notable gallery), except for one single article on a C-list website in some podunk small city. And WP:BIO requires "been the subject of multiple" sources. One isn't multiple. And her book is just an instruction book by an unnotable specialist publisher. Her work isn't cutting-edge so she's not likely to achieve later fame. Her awards are trivial.

It's a coin flip. She doesn't meet WP:BIO unless you squint a little, or WP:ANYBIO or WP:ARTIST, so on that basis it'd be slightly idiosyncratic to keep the article. Herostratus (talk) 17:33, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Will userfy upon request. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:37, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Zaleski family (Dołęga coat of arms)

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

Unreferenced article about a small noble family in Poland. Pl wiki does not have a dedicated article about this family, through there's a section in an article about their family house (pl:Willa_Zaleskich_w_Sanoku#Rodzina_Zaleskich). I am not seeing notability outside the house (there were some notable members in the family, but the family as such doesn't seem to have left a mark on history outside having a notable house). Pl wiki references are to books and articles about regional history of a provincial Polish town (Sanok), where the said house is located. Google book search for "Rodzina Zaleskich" (Polish for Zaleski family) gives some hits, but from what I can see they are passing mentions; nothing that could be used to support stand-alone notability. At best I can suggest userfication at the creator's userspace, with a recommendation that he translates the pl article about family house, where this stub can be included. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:37, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:27, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:27, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 17:39, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 01:19, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Userfication - article should be updated with the information translated from so it looks more like the Ossowski family (Dołęga coat of arms) article. The original author Jemthepen seems to be on a wikibreak. Ajh1492 (talk) 17:10, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:44, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I cannot find any substantial or significant about this family, if they even existed. We can always recreate the article in the future should someone who knows about Polish noble families find anything about them. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 13:56, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or, I guess, Userfy which is kinder anyway, per Ajh1492). The Polish article on the Zaleskis is kind of fairly trivial stuff mostly. If there's material on their pre-19th-century history then maybe a decent article could be created, per The Legendary Ranger. It's not worthwhile keeping this article around, since we don't know and there's not enough material to make it useful for building a larger article. The image is just that of the Dołęgas generally and not specific to the Zaleskis, apparently, so there's no loss there. Herostratus (talk) 16:18, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 23:01, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Knight against Samurai

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

This article is pure speculation (as acknowledged in its second sentence) as no such combat ever took place. Given the historical realities such combat was totally impossible (European-style knights couldn't travel to Japan, and vice-versa, and there was never any likelihood of Japanese and European armies clashing elsewhere) and speculating on how it would have turned out is pointless and not a suitable topic for an encyclopaedia. Nick-D (talk) 01:17, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Nick-D (talk) 01:20, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Delete". Aside from what is already mentioned: Knights and samurai lived in completely different environments, their arms, armour and training were adapted to different environments ...and a knight wasn't one thing. Knights were radically different, depending on what period or place they were from. The same is true of samurai. Speculation on which would win in a fight, is essentially pointless. It might still be amusing, none-the-less, but it has no place on Wikipedia.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 02:03, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a summary of a unnotable article by an unnotable author about an unnotable subject. This belongs on Deadliest Warrior, on the "History" Channel. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:50, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and lacks WP:RSs. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:47, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications. - About the Author:Having pursued the craft since 1980, John Clements is one of the world's foremost authorities on Medieval and Renaissance fighting skills. Clements has authored two books and more than a dozen magazine articles on historical swordplay. A leader in historical fencing studies, he has researched swords and sword combat in ten countries and taught seminars on the subject in eight. He has lectured and demonstrated at numerous museums and universities and is a frequent consultant on Medieval and Renaissance combative systems. He works full-time teaching and writing on historical European fighting arts. About the topic - is a historical reenactment of a hypothetical battle. Vyacheslav84 (talk) 03:50, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John Clements is far from "an established expert" or "one of the world's foremost authorities". He himself claims that about himself. He is a self proclaimed "expert".

He has been able to convince some documentary maker of his qualifications, but not anyone who studies swords or swordsmanship. No one aside from members of his own organization (which is isolationist, and over which he has absolute power), in which anyone who questions him could be kicked out for being disloyal (as per their membership agreement). No one (outside of ARMA) in the study of swords, or Historical European Swordsmanship regards him as an authority. His views are not accepted, or regarded as sensible. His research methods are seen as very poor, to put it mildly. He is mostly either ignored, or seen as a joke. Also, he has no qualifications when it comes to the study of Japanese swords or swordsmanship.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 18:52, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable speculation from a unreliable source. If this becomes a hot topic among historians, we can discuss it then. Until that time, this is at about the same level as a forum debate on Superman vs the Hulk. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:18, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete but the historical criticism is irrelevant. I tend to agree with the policy points above, but it's not up to us to evaluate the historical viability of a topic. The question is do enough reliable sources talk about "knight versus samurai" to merit an article (see the great Tiger versus lion article for precedent). If message board posts, blogs, and cosplay videos were considered reliable sources it'd be notable in spades, but I'm not really seeing anything that would work. The tone/style is also entirely unencyclopedic. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 04:42, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:19, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:20, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As above - it might be different if there were multiple sources discussing this but right now it is one non-notable author about a trivial topic.Peter Rehse (talk) 09:27, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just to be safe I had a look at our Deadliest Warrior page to make sure that this wasn't covered in an episode, and it wasn't, so I agree that this is a little too far off the beaten path to be salvageable. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:31, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What an utterly pointless article. I can't even determine exactly what it's about. As far as I can tell, it just seems to be promoting (badly) a single hypothetical essay by a single individual. This is not encyclopaedic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:00, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – we don't need articles about speculation and things that will probably never happen. Epicgenius (talk) 17:41, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete' - Just like TomStar81 says, it is like an episode from Deadliest Warrior. Sorry but a single source does not an article make. Way too much original research here. - Pmedema (talk) 01:19, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above WP:OR--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 02:09, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lacks WP:RS and looks like WP:OR. Anotherclown (talk) 07:39, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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