Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 September 23

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 22 September	24 September >

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 no consensus. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:04, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Android version history

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

Delete per WP:NOTCHANGELOG. ~~There are sporadic important bits like dates here and there which we can pick up before deletion.~~ Codename Lisa (talk) 23:15, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The nomination suggests keeping parts of the article and so deletion is not appropriate per WP:MAD and WP:SK. Warden (talk) 23:55, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was wrong. There aren't. At least, not anymore. And by the way, dates are not eligible for copyright protection. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 00:53, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But why the quick change? It looks like you nominated the article for deletion right after Jenova20 reverted your edits. I hope you didn't decide to resolve the issues by throwing the whole thing out and submitting an AfD because you didn't want to take the time to fix the issues properly, discuss the edits with Jenova, and resolve it on the article talk page. That's not very constructive. - M0rphzone (talk) 14:36, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I am glad you saw that. Yes, I was originally intent on resolving the problem by improving the changelog instead of deleting it. But I was acutely aware of the fact that some people might disagree. So, I had to test the "disagreement" factor. The test was easy: I made a policy-supported edit and cited the said policy. But Jenova20's peremptory revert proved that his attachment to the changelog is born out of zeal and fanaticism and the changelog is beyond redemption. So, I nominated the page for deletion.

As for why the quick change, well, Wikipedia changes rapidly. I meant to do it myself but someone did it; I can't complain.

Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 00:51, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that content from Android (operating system) was previously spun out from the page to form a more detailed article on the version history. We could split more prose from the article and expand the version history article with version comparisons and security issues/fixes. - M0rphzone (talk) 15:03, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All I can say is "Good luck trying". I love improving the articles instead of bringing them to AfD. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 01:09, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article is more than just a changelog, it is a detailed page that explains the differences between the major Android versions. This information wouldn't really fit in elsewhere as a section on a different article without bloating the other article, which is why a separate page is suitable. Many other system software types have similar pages for the same reason; the different versions themselves are notable, however they form a large amount of information that would be better split off into a separate page. --benlisquare_T•C•E 00:30, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi.

A changelog "is a detailed page that explains the differences between the major Android versions", so yes, it is exactly a changelog.

"Many other system software types have similar pages." WP:OSE. Just give me a link and I'll nominate them for deletion too.

Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 01:07, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're really good at twisting my words to shoehorn it to fit WP:OSE. The rest of the sentence is where most of the context is at, please refer to it. I'm not arguing OSE, I'm arguing WP:N. Please don't do the same thing British tabloids do. --benlisquare_T•C•E 10:46, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
...but since you asked so nicely, please nominate iOS version history for deletion, along with Windows Phone version history, Xbox 360 system software, Nintendo DSi system software, Nintendo 3DS system software, Wii system software, List of Linux Mint releases and List of Ubuntu releases. Just do it, come on, don't be shy. Don't tell me you're going to back down from your big words? I'd like to see what the outcome for a second AfD at iOS version history would be like, I'm real curious. Will the Apple Internet Defence Force show up? Who knows. I'd like to see that the community doesn't have its double standards or a pro-Apple/MS slant; fair's fair, right? --benlisquare_T•C•E 10:56, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looks like a straight-up changelog to me. WP:NOTCHANGELOG is pretty blunt about this: it's not allowed. If there truly is no salvageable data in this article, then it should be deleted, but I have no prejudice against merging useful bits. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:32, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is a changelog, no matter how you cut it. Make an actual prose-based History of Android page and that would be a different story. But unfortunately, this must go. I tried using similar logic to delete the Windows Phone history page, but got shot down by an assertion that "These articles are designed to be listed this way." ViperSnake151 Talk 04:06, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - unconstructive deletion argument. WP:DIRECTORY is used for pages that are literally a list of version changes with little to no prose. This is hardly a bare-bones changelog, but it will need a rewrite to expand upon each version's details in prose. - M0rphzone (talk) 04:59, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm going to starkly disagree with policy and use WP:IAR as my rationale; this is useful knowledge for readers. As said above, this is slightly more than a change log and it's not like it's a garbled list of changes to Android. Insulam Simia (talk · contribs) 05:44, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - This issue has already been dealt with numerous times. See the amount of information offered in the article, then read iOS version history to see a changelog. Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ^(email) 08:51, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe the information offered to be as excessive enough to warrant a violation of WP:NOTCHANGELOG either, which does not rule any article with prose and a version difference should be deleted (if it's actually read). Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ^(email) 08:59, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Please refer to the previous deletion discussion, which also nominated this article and was snow closed as Keep, at Articles for deletion: IOS version history. Dcxf (talk) 09:57, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that other AfD is a gallery of arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. I wouldn't call that a "snow close" at all, since few (if any) of those comments have any basis in any Wikipedia guidelines. - Aoidh (talk) 15:40, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The closing administrator said "The result was keep. Heavy snow in the forecast." Dcxf (talk) 22:43, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For the sake of completeness I will C/P my Keep reasons from the previous discussion here:

The article is already a summary of "changes of note" between releases, as selected by the editors, not a comprehensive changelog detailing every change (there are usually hundreds or thousands of changes in each version). Since it is selective, it isn't indiscriminate. Some of the entries for more recent changes are a bit too detailed but could be edited down.
Usefulness: For commercial reasons the release dates of software and the introduction of features have become quite significant, and such milestones in the software's history can be notable and are worth documenting. Major, complex pieces of software like operating systems usually have thousands of changes between versions, and obviously listing every single change is inappropriate, but a condensed list selected by editors is worthwhile and provides a valuable reference by showing a condensed history that is (ideally) free from marketing gloss and hype. Dcxf (talk) 22:50, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's all well and good, but if that AfD is the best indicator that these types of articles have consensus to be on Wikipedia, that's as flimsy a consensus as one can have. When the condensed list is selected by editors and not reliable sources, that's a problem. Not everything useful belongs on Wikipedia. I'm not saying this article should be kept or deleted, only that "it's useful" is one of the weakest rationales one can give, if the article is to be kept there should be more to it than a weak explanation as to how it's useful. Show that it's useful through actual guidelines or policies, don't allude to them through colourful language; anyone can allude to usefulness for any article, that is nothing more than WP:ITSUSEFUL. - Aoidh (talk) 05:30, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The "Arguments to avoid" essay says we should use our common sense to think about how a non-trivial number of people would find this information useful; I think I've given valid reasons for that, and the consensus from the previous AfD tends to support that too. The "Arguments to avoid" essay also says "As this essay tries to stimulate people to use sound arguments in deletion discussions, it is important to realize that countering the keep or delete arguments of other people, or dismissing them outright, by simply referring them to this essay (e.g. just saying WP:ITSUSEFUL) is not encouraged". Regarding selection of changes by reliable sources, every Android release attracts many multi-page articles that go into much more detail about each feature (example) so this is already a very condensed list, and it really is up to editors to choose what to include. If the only objection is that some of the content (maybe 50%) has primary sources, that can easily be changed. Dcxf (talk) 09:15, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a really useful page, this information is not available anywhere else on the internet and the process of tracking down the references given on this page requires a lot of work.128.232.10.174 (talk) 13:09, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I know that deletion is a very rule-driven process, but the bottom line is that this article is valuable. It is the best reference I have found for certain information I use during app development. Consider this, with respect to the "version history" issue: With some software, only a couple of versions are active at any one time, so that a version history is just historical arcana. In the case of Android, many versions are in active use, often on devices which cannot be further upgraded. In this case, the history is actively useful. VeloSteve (talk) 15:13, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Android is notable. The different versions were notable on release and differ from each other. It is appropriate to include that in WP. Exactly how that is done is an editing matter. On the face of it the present arrangement is reasonable, though I might include a narrative sentence or two on each version as well as listing the changes themselves. Wikipedia is not just about what is, but what was. In decades to come, the development history may well be of far more interest than the description of how it ended up. --AJHingston (talk) 15:53, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. I don't want any of my favorite articles—that I find very resourceful—being deleted. Android Version History is one of the articles I look on to daily. I support Android, Apple, Microsoft, and Blackberry. I support anybody who opposes this deletion.𝕁𝕠𝕣𝕕𝕒𝕟𝕂𝕪𝕤𝕖𝕣𝟚𝟚 20:41, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment and Warning: The last few votes here are only considering how useful the article is, rather than making an argument based off policy. Before making a vote on this, I highly recommend you read Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. If you want to back this page up on an external wiki, you can (as long as you do not violate the license). ViperSnake151 Talk 21:28, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, usefulness is a consideration in deciding appropriate content in Wikipedia - we would not wish to have articles that were useless. That is not saying that purely subjective views about whether we like an article should determine whether to keep an article, and if it is outside the scope of the encyclopaedia then of course it should go. But I do not think that applies here. Incidentally, it is best to avoid words like 'warning' in these discussions, especially when in bold type; they are liable to be misunderstood. --AJHingston (talk) 22:32, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:ITSUSEFUL says "If reasons are given, "usefulness" can be the basis of a valid argument for inclusion. An encyclopedia should, by definition, be informative and useful to its readers. Try to exercise common sense, and consider how a non-trivial number of people will consider the information "useful"." Dcxf (talk) 22:43, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. says "As an Android developer, this page is extremely useful to decide on the target audience." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.105.39.41 (talk) 23:45, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Individual Android releases do not warrant their own articles in the same way that, e.g., Windows' do, but at the same time the history of Android both deserves an inclusion in the encyclopedia and is also too long to be included in the main Android article. If the problem here is that the article contains too many bullet points as opposed to prose, then the solution shouldn't involve AFD. — daranz [ t ] 13:39, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Based on the article history and the preceding comments at Talk:Features new to Windows 8#Features new to Windows 8.1, this nomination appears to be more of an attempt to prove a WP:POINT rather than attempt to improve the encyclopedia. 108.4.57.126 (talk) 13:43, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Please assume good faith and avoid personal attacks. The article's name has only briefly come up in the said discussion and there is no evidence that the nominator wants to make a point; in fact, M0rphzone's evidence at the top shows the nominator tried to fix things first. It is every Wikipedian's right to nominates policy-incompliant article's for deletion and there is no restriction as to how he or she discovers said article. 188.245.70.250 (talk) 02:40, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I believe that I have done as you suggest. Focusing on the page edits mentioned and the timing of those edits, the nomination appears to be an attempt to make a WP:POINT. 108.4.57.126 (talk) 03:19, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suggested assuming good faith and avoiding personal attacks. You are not doing it. Judging from that discussion, the nominator did not do a certain bit of source hunting for you and you are filing this retaliatory vote to break even. Your disputes belongs to WP:DR; and no one is obliged to hunt sources for you. 188.245.78.228 (talk) 17:35, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. I believe that you may have me confused with another anonymous editor. I have never participated in the discussion at Talk:Features new to Windows 8 and I have no intent of exacting any form of retaliation. The comments on Talk:Features new to Windows 8 that I an referring to are those related to WP:OSE. I only included that reference so that the AfD closing administrator could have easier access to the background preceding this nomination. Soon after those comments were made, an edit was made to this article which was considered to be controversial and reverted by another editor. Rather attempt to resolve the dispute per WP:BRD and discussing the desired change on the article talk page, a nomination was made to delete the article which some (myself included) may view as an attempt to prove a WP:POINT. I feel that this article imparts useful information to the reader and uses methods to improve the page functionality per WP:IAR. These reasons are my motivation in voting to keep this page. 108.4.57.126 (talk) 01:57, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is a change log and the prose in it doesn't make it anything else. Most change logs do have that amount of prose. 188.245.70.250 (talk) 02:40, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Lots of useful information and a useful fork of the Android (operating system) article. —Al E.^(talk) 13:40, 26 September 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. Not a request for deletion Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:08, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote this article. I'm an employee of Fidelis but my history as a wikipedia contributor long predates my involvement with the company. I was careful to write the article using externally verifiable facts, and to avoid the use of marketing nonsense. On what basis is this article nominated for deletion? --Spblat (talk) 17:06, 16 September 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 September 23. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 22:58, 23 September 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) 01:04, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hindupur Sudarshan

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

This is something of a promotional BLP that has been unsuitably sourced since its creation in 2006. I'm unable to find any significant coverage of Mr Sudarshan so I propose the article for deletion as not meeting the notability guidelines. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:46, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find anything to support notability. This recent edit[1] suggests a COI wishing to see it deleted anyway. 18 pages of Google hits, most of it sourced back to Wikipedia. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 23:26, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No coverage in reliable sources, and there isn't even really a strong claim to notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:34, 27 September 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) 01:05, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neri Karra

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

Insufficient notability for WP:Academic Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:42, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Fails WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:16, 26 September 2013 (UTC).[reply]
~~Leaning~~ Delete - No evidence of fashion notability. News pulls up quite a few hits in Russian - but I've looked at most of them and they were all clearly advertisements or ad copy, or passing mentions alongside other handbag/leather goods brands.

I saw two news hits for Cosmopolitan Ukraine in 2006/2007 that redirected to default search pages, but the fragment in Google preview, "А мне сегодня подарили кошелёк для документов NERI KARRA.Через два месяца я положу туда права! А мне сегодня подарили кошелёк для документов ..." auto-translated as "And today I gave the purse for documents NERI KARRA.Cherez two months I'll put right there!" - so, allowing for crappy auto-translation, MIGHT just possibly have been something... But the fact that both previews had similar wording a year apart makes me think it was ad-copy. As fashion is clearly the source of the majority of her coverage/notability, this is not looking good.

I also did a deeper web search for her, and after filtering out all her websites, she does have an academic presence as evidenced by hits such as this but not really sufficient for a WP article. However, the Guardian does indicate that she used to be dean and director of the School of Fashion and Design London so maybe a redirect there would be appropriate? Although I am wondering if that school is sufficiently notable in itself, looking at the article... Mabalu (talk) 10:02, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I don't know for sure that this is relevant, but both Neri Karra and School of Fashion and Design London were created by the same blocked sockpuppet, whose speciality was "tag teaming and promotional editing behaviour at London School of Business and Finance" - the institution with which the School of Fashion and Design London is supposedly affiliated. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:38, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree with Mabalu about the notability or lack thereof of School of Fashion and Design London; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/School of Fashion and Design London. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:55, 26 September 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 Post-PC era. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:22, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PC

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

Subject of edit war involving a redirect to Post-PC era. In fact, the article started as a redirect to there, until an editor split it. I had restored it back to a redirect, but the article was restored, and an edit war began.

This article is not notable on its own. It is only notable in the context of "post-PC era" where it is discussed in detail. I do not see any real differences between them, and post-PC is the common term. ViperSnake151 Talk 22:19, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Object, this is two different term used by two different company. Although the meaning may seems similar. Asiaworldcity (talk) 22:27, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You've yet to say why. ViperSnake151 Talk 22:37, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: About notable, when you search on Google. You will find this is not a term just used by Microsoft, such as http://thevarguy.com/computer-technology-hardware-solutions-and-news/lenovo-all-hail-pc-era. On the other hand, Post-PC era is just one of the words hype by the media when Steve Jobs passed away. Asiaworldcity (talk) 00:01, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or delete. Two names for pretty close to the same concept can be covered in one article. Every new term does not get its own article unless it meets the same notability requirements that other topics need. Even if the person coining the term is very rich. The different visions could certainly be discussed somewhere on Wikipedia, but it seems post-PC era already mentions it. I would say beef up that article first with more citations to independent sources, and if the section gets too long it can always be spun off. But the current article on PC is just one long quote that does not even mention the term, and then one paragraph that is full of English language errors. Not sure AfD is the right place to solve an edit war, are there other more appropriate mechanisms to deal with that? W Nowicki (talk) 22:23, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - the articles reference the same topic, even if the label for the topic is different. The fact that Microsoft has a different spin on things (Windows 8) is not surprising, nor does it make it a different topic. -- Whpq (talk) 16:37, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:23, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Spotting (weight training)

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

This article, along with the one on Spotting (climbing), is basically an unreferenced extended dictionary definition, and not a subject with enough material for an independent encyclopedia article. KDS4444^Talk 21:28, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article is nothing like a dictionary entry. See WP:DICDEF for an explanation of the difference. Warden (talk) 23:25, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. bd2412 T 03:11, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:47, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 26 September 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. Snow applies in clearing up this hoax —SpacemanSpiff 17:48, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vikas Choudhary

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

Non-notable person whose claims to have represented various cricket teams are not borne out in cricket databases Johnlp (talk) 21:15, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Johnlp (talk) 22:52, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Blatant hoax article, I'm amazed that the speedy was turned down: Google searches reveal absolutely nothing, and they definitely would if this was about a real Indian cricketer. Twitter account exists but is similarly a hoax. Note that the article's creator is repeatedly removing the deletion templates. Harrias ^talk 06:42, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: I'm amazed the speedy was turned down and the article deemed "not a blatant hoax"... it's about as obvious a hoax as I've seen in a long while! Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 18:13, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: In addition to what other editors have said here, I can see only 1 or 2 mentions (this direct link may not work in Internet Explorer) and it seems to be an autobiography as well, note the username "Imvchoudhary" Tito☸Dutta 01:20, 26 September 2013 (UTC) To clarify, the reason of my "delete" vote is "notability" Tito☸Dutta 01:21, 26 September 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.

Vikas Choudhary Under19 Indian Cricketer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.39.187.73 (talk) 06:01, 21 February 2014 (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 DavidLeighEllis (talk) 19:49, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Roșia Montană Project

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

The project is likely to be notable but the present article and all older versions have severe neutrality issues. Better to use WP:TNT and start all over again. The Banner talk 21:16, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep -- if you think the article is biased, fix the article, not delete it. If you find better sources than New York Times, Guardian, BBC, France 3, go ahead and add them. bogdan (talk) 21:31, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It is biased from the first to the last version. Your edits did not make any bit less biased, you just swung the bias in another way. This article is just beyond rescue. The Banner talk 22:30, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, and improve. The topic itself is undoubtedly notable; it is a huge commercial project with great significance for the Romanian environment and economy, and the subject of a big political controversy. It may yet the subject of a referenmdum.
A search of Gnews finds tons of Romanian-language sources, and there are also plenty of English-language sources, e.g. Spiegel International[2], BBC[3], Business Review[4], The Guardian[5]. So far we had a version which was very biased towards the company; then the edits by Bogdangiusca added a lot of valuable material from a different perspective. Bogdangiusca's work may have tilted the article too far the other way, but that's often the way things go as editors arrive to expand a topic and achieve a balance. The article clearly needs more work, but that is nothing unusual, and there is plemty to build on. Editors should improve the article rather WP:TNT the work done already. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:25, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, political and economical relevance both in Romania and Hungary. --Norden1990 (talk) 11:58, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's a controversial project. What NPOV violations in the article are egrgious enough that deletion must be the answer? -- Whpq (talk) 16:43, 27 September 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 Roșia Montană Project. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:28, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Roșia Montană Gold Corporation

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

The company is likely to be notable but the present article and all older versions have severe neutrality issues. Better to use WP:TNT and start all over again. The Banner talk 21:15, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep -- if you think the article is biased, fix the article. bogdan (talk) 21:31, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It is biased from the first to the last version. Your edits did not make any bit less biased, you just swung the bias in another way. This article is just beyond rescue. The Banner talk 22:29, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Roșia Montană Project. The company's notability derives solely from its one major project, which appears to be a huge controversy. This is little or nothing to say about the company other that it is running this controversial project, and that is best done in the context of the main article on the project. If there is ever more to say about the company itself, then it could be split out ... but we are nowhere near that stage for now. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:51, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Concur with @BrownHairedGirl:. -- Whpq (talk) 16:45, 27 September 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) 01:28, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stole Dimitrievski

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:50, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:51, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Standard case of WP:TOOSOON, looks like he may well play in an FPL soon, but has not yet, nor has he played senior international football, so fails WP:NFOOTY. Fenix down (talk) 07:23, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:57, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the article is about a footballer that has played in a fully pro league yet or represented his country at senior level, which means it fails WP:NFOOTY. Also fails WP:GNG as there isn't enough coverage in reliable sources. Mentoz86 (talk) 20:58, 28 September 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 deletion (G11). (Non-admin closure) AllyD (talk) 06:19, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agnosco Technologies Inc.

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

Procedural AfD. Created four times today and deleted as G11 (spam) each time, yet makes some sort of claim to notability (revenues of £1bn), so bringing it here. Sourced to nothing except primary sources. Black Kite (talk) 20:13, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Correction to Black Kite: They don't have revenue of $1 billion. The current version says, somewhat clumsily, "Agnosco maps to prolong their strengthening trend by expanding more offices nationwide and globally, exceeding $1 Billion in revenue." I don't know whether "maps to" is a known locution that means "plans to" in some parts of the world, but previous versions of the article were clearer: that their goal is to reach $1 billion in annual revenue. This was part of the "gee, we're so excited about our own prospects" feel of the article that led me to tag it as promotional in the first place. —Largo Plazo (talk) 20:29, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point - I missed that. In that case, the article has even less reason to exist. Black Kite (talk) 20:34, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article looks more like a Facebook profile than an encyclopedic article. I agree with —Largo Plazo's point of view that it appears to mean that $1 billion is a goal. It is therefore, not notable in any way.

Delete. There is hardly any coverage, and what coverage there is is just a mirror of what's on the company website. --Jakob (Scream about the things I've broken) 21:46, 23 September 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:05, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chicago Stockyard Kilty Band

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

Grade 4 bands not notable. James^x1 2345 17:50, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Chicago Highlanders Pipe Band.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:34, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:15, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:15, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that band is notable either. Most Grade 4 bands are pretty average, unless they have historical significance (which they don't appear to, but they might.) This is Chicago Highlanders and this is a very much more notable pipe band. There are literally thousands of these grade 4 bands, very few of which merit inclusion here. Sorry if you play pipes and I'm patronising you. James^x1 2345 16:10, 8 September 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) 01:03, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. It's an ancient pipe band, going for over 90 years. Certainly, as an organization, re the financials,age, could easily satisfy WP:ORG. scope_creep talk 16:28, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Huh? ORG says nothing about the age of an organization, and I don't see any financial information in the article. --BDD (talk) 19:07, 30 September 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) 20:09, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No references, no notability demonstrated. If I came across it tagged with A7, I'd give it the axe. --BDD (talk) 19:05, 30 September 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 Mazinger characters. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:05, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Diana A

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

This does not establish notability independent of Mazinger Z 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) 20:08, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Mazinger Z or delete. Either is acceptable. The article makes no claim to notability, and finding independent reliable sources to establish notability has proved difficult. If someone can find Japanese sources, then the article can be recreated, but it must satisfy the WP:GNG first. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:45, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Mazinger characters, the only thing you would be merging is unsourced info, does not help the main character page. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:07, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Mazinger characters per Knowledgekid87, no significant coverage from independent secondary sources, fails WP:GNG.Folken de Fanel (talk) 20:37, 4 October 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) 19:09, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blackworld

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

Non-notable fictional planet in the Marvel Universe. No real world context and written in-universe. I can find no sources and I doubt there are any sources that would ever be able to add significant real world context to this article. Ridernyc (talk) 21:31, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Thor (Marvel Comics). It could possible be mentioned in the 1970s Thor section, but that may not be entirely necessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42of8 (talk • contribs) 06:12, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:52, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:52, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:52, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. I can't imagine anyone searching for this. Redirect seems unnecessary. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:48, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I searched for it. I assume others will too. Please explain why you feel it should be deleted entirely. Per WP:FAILN deletion should be the last resort for articles of unclear notability. 42of8 (talk) 18:44, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge into Features of the Marvel Universe. BOZ (talk) 15:15, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:59, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There just isn't any reliable sourcing for this - just primary sources. Anything critical could be merged into the Features of the Marvel Universe list. Nwlaw63 (talk) 03:31, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing notable about this subject.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:57, 17 September 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) 20:05, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to the features article. Without anything to show notability, there is no need for an article. TTN (talk) 15:03, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It doesn't seem to be a recurring element in the Marvel Universe - just appearing in one Thor story - and its name seems too generic to be cluttering up our namespace. Warden (talk) 15:07, 28 September 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 Ancient One. delete and redirect - we don't merge unsourced stuff Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:04, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kamar-Taj

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

Non-notable fictional location in the Marvel Universe. No real world context and written in-universe. I can find no sources and I doubt there are any sources that would ever be able to add significant real world context to this article Ridernyc (talk) 21:25, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Doctor Strange after cleaning it up some. I cannot find this fictional nation having any life beyond the Doctor Strange comics. Is not mentioned in the Doctor Strange article, but probably could be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42of8 (talk • contribs) 21:52, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:51, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If it was worth mentioning in the Doctor Strange article it would already be covered in the Doctor Strange article. There is no reason to force this into that article simply so we can cover a unnecessary minutia of detail. Ridernyc (talk) 00:52, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That argument is not really logical. Wikipedia articles are a work in progress, so saying something wasn't included in an article means it's not important is demanding perfection from the start. Someone felt that this item was important enough to start this article. There is at least one verifiable primary source. The Doctor Strange article needs work and adding the location of certain events would help give context. Adding what information there is in this article to the Doctor Strange article seems like win-win situation. Exactly why is this unnecessary minutia? Do you even understand what people studying fictional locations are looking for or do you assume it isn't a topic of interest to anyone? 42of8 (talk) 02:41, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:51, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:51, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. I agree with the nom. There's no reason for a merge or redirect. It's too trivial. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:58, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge into Features of the Marvel Universe. BOZ (talk) 15:15, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:57, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. How trivial is this? It only gets two lines of "history" in the Marvel Comics Database. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:11, 15 September 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) 20:02, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Ancient One as it's where he lives. Warden (talk) 15:12, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Colonel Warden. I was unable to find RS'ing for this. Jclemens (talk) 00:38, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Ancient One or Delete, fails WP:GNG.Folken de Fanel (talk) 12:26, 4 October 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 numbers are comparable, but the arguments on the delete side are more in-line and focused. I read a rough consensus to delete.Mojo Hand (talk) 04:22, 5 October 2013 (UTC). Changing result to Merge - I see a narrow rough consensus to delete on this page, but a broader consensus to merge on related articles. So I factoring in the broader consensus and consistent approach.--Mojo Hand (talk) 15:07, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Siege Perilous (comics)

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

Non-notable object from the Marvel universe. Written in-universe with no real world context. Can not find and highly doubt sources can be found to establish notability and add real world context. Ridernyc (talk) 21:49, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:53, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:53, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:53, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Almost all of the sourcing appears to be primary. Nwlaw63 (talk) 03:03, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Over 500 pages link to this article. There are lots of secondary and tertiary sources out there for this. There is a link to a substantial piece of literary criticism on the link at the bottom of the article from an independent reliable source. Where did you look for sources? Only portions of the article are written in-universe and that can be fixed. The article can certainly be expanded.42of8 (talk) 06:16, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A host of fan websites don't constitute reliable sourcing. Nwlaw63 (talk) 16:15, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since you say the same exact thing in everyone of these debates I am now forced to cut and paste a very long detailed reply to you in all of these AFDs. 42of8, please read WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:GNG. As you read them please keep in mind we also need real world context in the article. For example the creator saying something like "I needed a super strong metal, and it needed a cool name so I took the name Prometheus and add "um" to the end of it." In order to be encyclopedic the articles need to be about our real world and how the subjects were developed and published not just summaries of their fictional elements in a fictional universe. Sorry but I'm tired of you repling with the same basic reply of WP:Ilikeit and heres a bunch of primary, unreliable sources that I found in Google that just mention the subject in passing and have no real world information about the subject. It's the same over and over again, and I have repeatedly taken the time to explain to you why these sources fall short and then in the next AFD there is your same exact argument again. I like it and heres a bunch of stuff I found in Google. Ridernyc (talk) 16:59, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:43, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since we've kept Features of the Marvel Universe, a merge into that article is also acceptable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:19, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge into Features of the Marvel Universe. BOZ (talk) 15:15, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:52, 15 September 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) 20:02, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge into the features article. It doesn't matter either way so long as it doesn't establish notability. TTN (talk) 15:42, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Merger into Siege Perilous would be most sensible as that page is currently quite small and could use more content. Arthurian myth has been endlessly recycled and so it makes sense to keep all developments of it together. Warden (talk) 15:04, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a few Google News searches yield The Atlantic, Comic Vine (Which seems to be a subsidiary of CBS Interactive), among others, which suggest that the GNG is either met, or close to met, just based on a few minutes of my own Google News efforts. Jclemens (talk) 00:17, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lacks independent reliable sources that establish the out-of-universe notability of this fictional item. For example, the first source offered by Jclemens is a blog post of unclear reliability which mentions the object in a single run-on sentence that reads in relevant part "...Havok was one of the Magistrates since having his memory wiped by the Siege Perilous." without bothering even to explain what that is within the fiction itself. The second apparently allows anyone to edit (I signed up through a dummy Facebook account but didn't change anything) and is a plot summary of an X-Men issue which starts "Rogue has returned to the X-Men's base in the Australian outback after being spat out by the Siege Perilous." again with no explanation of what that even is within the fiction. The reason so many pages link to this article is because it's included in four different templates and so appears to link to every other page within that template. Remove the links from the templates and those fall away within a few hours. The "substantial literary criticism" linked at the bottom of the article is to uncannyxmen.net which does not appear to exercise the sort of editorial control needed to be considered reliable. In the absence of independent reliable sources the article should be deleted. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 02:24, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Features of the Marvel Universe or Delete, the article only has primary sourcing and thus fails WP:GNG which requires "significant coverage from multiple reliable sources". Trivial mentions and fansites are not enough to meet the requirements.Folken de Fanel (talk) 12:30, 4 October 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:01, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vehicular Reactive Routing protocol

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

Non-notable academic topic. Article summarizes an academic paper that has only received five citations so far (per google scholar). Lesser Cartographies (talk) 23:47, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:21, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is this an article on the protocol or on the paper? A lack of citations to a paper might be evidence of non-notability for that paper, but it's not evidence that the protocol isn't being used or studied. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:33, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's a reasonable question. I'm getting four hits on google scholar, two cited five times and two not cited at all. The two cited papers are by the same author. So I'd say both the paper and the topic are non-notable. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 06:41, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although perhaps should be covered somewhere, there are already articles using different acronyms for the same general topic. See Vehicular ad hoc network, Mobile ad hoc network, Intelligent vehicular ad-hoc network, Dedicated short-range communications, Communications, Air-interface, Long and Medium range (should be moved?), Intelligent transportation system and IEEE 802.11p (at least Wireless Access for the Vehicular Environment got redirected there). These might be consolidated into one or two neutral articles if someone ever has the time. We have done some trying to improve this quality, and this one does not seem to add any value, just promoting one student's project. W Nowicki (talk) 18:55, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:42, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep All the articles above, are linked, as they are part of the same standard documents, specifically created by the IEEE to foster networking, routing and communication systems for vehicles, re: driver-less vehicles. The article you are wanting to delete describes the protocol for routing packets between each vehicle in the network. It's strong encyclopedic knowledge. There is a large number of Google Books to to help with Notability, and an substantial number of GHits. scope_creep talk 15:33, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Comment After reviewing the articles listed by W Nowicki I emphatically agree with scope_creep that all are notable and are either well-sourced or could become so with a bit of effort. However, the article I nominated for deletion (Vehicular Reactive Routing protocol) is not an IEEE standard and not cited sufficiently in the peer-reviewed literature. Rather, it's a proposed protocol that hasn't gained enough traction yet to (in my opinion) be notable. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 17:57, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable at all.--92.20.148.198 (talk) 22:13, 15 September 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) 19:59, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As pointed out by W Nowicki there seems to be a big mess here. I don't think that deleting is the best way to start cleaning it up. Other options should be considered WP:BEFORE deletion. ~KvnG 22:16, 28 September 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) 01:32, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Capocelli

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

Spam cross-wiki. This page is identical to the version that was deleted from it.wiki one year ago (see it:Wikipedia:Pagine da cancellare/Capocelli), because it didn't have any references and it was probably an original research based on a paid heraldic research center. BohemianRhapsody (talk) 00:43, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:15, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:15, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

--79.27.4.162 (talk) 07:26, 7 September 2013 (UTC)Hi! I've created the page and now I'm going to tell the right fact: this information didn't come from a private heraldic study, but from a book that I've read in an ITALIAN NATIONAL ARCHIVE, in particulary that of Bari. So this is all correct! I think now that wikipedia is composed by a little strange group of people who enjoying disturb the other people and who doesn't take care of the informations.It's really incredible![reply]

Delete per WP:GNG multiple reliable sources. The one cited source exists[6] but it is very close to the topic, published by the Commune where the family is from. The text of the article has been translated by Google Translate and is nearly incomprehensible. The single source is not enough to establish notability for inclusion on Wikipedia. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:08, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:47, 15 September 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) 19:54, 23 September 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:03, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

American Association of Sleep Technologists

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

None of the provided references are significant coverage, and if that's the best that can be done (I couldn't find much in my search either), then this organization is not notable. ~Charmlet ^-talk- 00:23, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete I did find a couple of books on sleep and sleep technology that briefly mention the organization, but overall the reliable sourcing seems slim. Nwlaw63 (talk) 01:11, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:14, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:14, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I am at a complete loss why this organization and the American Board of Sleep Medicine are up for deletion, as both are very much involved in the practice of sleep studies and sleep medicine. Does every single article about these in a professional sleep or respiratory journal have to be referenced in the articles? Bill Pollard (talk) 13:02, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Could you then find significant coverage of the organization in reliable sources? Because right now, the sources are primary or only give the briefest of mentions. Nwlaw63 (talk) 13:22, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I looked at Sleep Review magazine's article search engine , at http://www.sleepreviewmag.com/hidn-search/?searchword=american board of sleep medicine&catid[0]=558&catid[1]=113&catid[2]=343&catid[3]=116&catid[4]=119&catid[5]=562&catid[6]=563&catid[7]=174&limitstart=0 , and looked for 'American Board of Sleep Medicine.' This search came up with 385 articles. Granted only a fourth of them had information about the Board or the American Association of Sleep Technologists. Many of these articles covered significant sleep medicine and sleep study topics. I did not even bother to do a similar search in the Advance for Respiratory Care & Sleep Medicine magazine or the AARC Times, which is in the American Association for Respiratory Care website. It just can't be argued these two entities have no significant coverage. I also put this comment in the AfD discussion of the American Board of Sleep Medicine. Bill Pollard (talk) 13:23, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see WP:42 for a definition of "significant". Multiple passing mentions != significant coverage. Significant coverage is on a source-by-source basis, just as reliability and independence are. Having 100 somewhat-kinda-reliable-ish-abit sources does not equal a reliable source. Nor does having 100 passing mentions equal significant coverage.

Keep Sleep Review magazine calls it "the premier membership association" for sleep professionals (sleep technologists).[7] Confirmed in another source[8] and very many other sources. Clearly notable organization with the sleep studies field. Keep per WP:NGO, #1 national scope and #2 coverage of activities in multiple reliable independent sources. The depth of coverage isn't just word count, it's significance, and this is said to be a significant professional organization per the sources. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:11, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Please view my comments today in the AfD discussion about the American Board of Sleep Medicine. These discussions are related and my comments further clarify these discussions. Bill Pollard (talk) 10:58, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I can't follow what you're trying to say in relation to this AfD. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 02:57, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Green Cardamom: He wishes to claim that hundreds of passing mentions add up to a few significant coverage instances, but that's simply not what is meant by significant coverage, which specifically states that passing mentions are not significant. ~Charmlet ^-talk- 02:59, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:45, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I never said such a silly thing about using dozens of passing references to be equivalent to using several significant references, as is stated above. Of the numerous references in Sleep Review probably only 20 have significant coverage of this topic. I performed an article search in RT magazine and Advance for Respiratory Care & Sleep Medicine and found a handful of articles in each with significant coverage. I found some in AARC Times, as well, but unfortunately one has to have membership in the American Association for Respiratory Care to access the articles; this tends to invalidate using sources there, as the public cannot access them. I suggest anyone evaluating the merits of this subject do article searches in the mazagines I noted and actually read a bit of articles that show more than passing mentions of this organization. Bill Pollard (talk) 12:27, 15 September 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) 19:54, 23 September 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 all. Redirect main article to League of Ireland after deletion. —Darkwind (talk) 06:16, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FAI U19 League

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

Unreferenced article about a non-notable amature football league. Not at country's highest level and has not received significant coverage, failing WP:GNG JMHamo (talk) 19:52, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following article for the same reason. JMHamo (talk) 22:48, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 23:07, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - as non-notable. May merit a mention on a parent article, but definitely not sufficient notability for separate ones. Giant Snowman 12:58, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - In the main League of Ireland article, there is a mention of the U19 Elite league already. JMHamo (talk) 15:43, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinion on whether the FAI U19 League is notable or not, but it could be redirected to FAI league#Under 19 Elite League of Ireland as it is already mentioned there. The season-articles should be deleted as there isn't enough coverage to warrant stand-alone articles. Mentoz86 (talk) 21:04, 28 September 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 Christopher Wood (writer). Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:59, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Further Adventures of Barry Lyndon by Himself

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

Although the author probably wrote notable books, this is not one. Unable to find multiple reviews in reliable sources (WP:AUTHOR #3). There are a few mentions in Google Books but they are trivial records not significant coverage (WP:GNG). It's somewhat telling that on LibraryThing with 1.7 million members[9] only two members claim the book,[10] which is a good sign of obscurity even in its own day. Green Cardamom (talk) 19:20, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to The Luck of Barry Lyndon. There's a few brief references on Google Books (I added one to the article), and possibly was a little print coverage at the time of publication (1976), so there's no doubt that this existed and was published by a real publisher, but there's no indication that this is separately notable. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:57, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to Christopher Wood (writer), the author of the book. -- Whpq (talk) 16:50, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (or merge) to author. I would not like to see article on works by major authors being cluttered up with those who seek to bandwaggon by writing a sequel. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:02, 4 October 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) 01:34, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John Youboty

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

American Football player who has yet to make his pro debut in the NFL or other league. He is currently on a practice squad but this does not confer notability, nor guarantee he will play in the NFL at some time in the future. Ravendrop 04:14, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:00, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:00, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:00, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He was cut from the Broncos in August. Fails to meet WP:NGRIDIRON, WP:NCOLLATH, or WP:GNG.204.126.132.231 (talk) 20:19, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly passes WP:GNG. Click on the "news" link above and find the hundreds of articles about his college career. Please complete steps outlined in WP:BEFORE prior to nomination.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:13, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Most athletes at big universities are going to see their names in print--that's routine sports 204.126.132.231]] (talk) 20:12, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's a major difference between "seeing their name in print" and "routine coverage" -- and that's the reason that WP:GNG exists.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:09, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage of college athletics is why WP:NCOLLATH exists. The article's only sources are his profile at Temple (clearly routine) and the fact that he was signed as a free agent (like hundreds of others each year) and cut before playing a regular season game (more routine coverage).204.126.132.231 (talk) 20:17, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that simple. Coverage of college athletics is one reason that the guideline WP:NCOLLATH exists. It states, "Failing to meet the criteria in this guideline means that notability will need to be established in other ways" -- and I believe that is established through the general notability guideline. I also disagree that all of the coverage of the subject is routine as it goes beyond merely repeating of statistics. Just because a college athlete doesn't meet WP:NCOLLATH does not mean the subject is not notable. Notability can be achieved through other paths and I believe that is accomplished here.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:17, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think it's why to early to tell right now. I think he could eventually play a game in the NFL. Pmaster12 (talk) 20:25, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That he might play in the NFL someday is clearly WP:CRYSTALBALL.204.126.132.231 (talk) 19:44, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Youboty is not yet notable. If he does play in the NFL later, we can recreate the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:20, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:01, 15 September 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) 19:21, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject clearly fails to meet WP:NGRIDIRON or WP:NCOLLATH. The article's only 2 references are to Temple's athletic website (obviously not independent) and a 2 line mention, along with 15 others, at the Bronco's website about all the free agents the Broncos added after the NFL draft (neither significant nor independent). Neither source shows the significant independent coverage required to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 19:36, 29 September 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 Dwarf_deities#Laduguer. Merged here instead of the suggested List of Dungeons & Dragons deities; this is a more appropriate location for it. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:56, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Laduguer

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

This character does not establish notability independent of Dungeons & Dragons through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of overly in-depth plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 20:57, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. A redirect to List of Dungeons & Dragons deities is also acceptable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:01, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:14, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:14, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge into List of Dungeons & Dragons deities. BOZ (talk) 12:05, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
transwiki to some fanboy site that would love this trivia. As for Wikipedia, the content fails WP:GNG as all of the sources are primary/non independent (either directly from the company, either the company that created it (TSR), the company that bought out the creator (Wizards of the Coast) or from the officially licensed producer of content, Piazo. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:07, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- and to clarify my position, given the article fails GNG delete merge or redirect would be the options. The proposed merge target suffers from the same bloat of content only supported by primary sources and so a merge is merely an exercise in shoveling the shit from one corner of the stall to another to let it stink there. There is no evidence that it is a likely search term that would benefit readers as a redirect and infact seems just as likely to be searched as a typo for a german word and so the selection of a redirect would be problematic. support delete as the preferred option of the three. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:06, 4 October 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 | 11:35, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Arguments above regarding independence of sourcing set the bar too high. Fact is, multiple separate companies have published material detailing this fictional element in multiple separate (although admittedly related) game systems. Jclemens (talk) 21:40, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

the only way they could possibly be considered "separate" companies is if you completely ignore the fact that one was bought out by the other and all its related intellectual property rights, and one is officially licensed producer of content. the bar is no higher here than it is for WP:Pokémon test. Your ITICCDMPRIPR position is not one that is supported by any rational reading or application of WP:GNG -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:47, 15 September 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) 19:20, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into List of Dungeons & Dragons deities or Delete, the topic fails to establish its notability because it is only sourced to primary sources. Our notability guideline requires "significant coverage from multiple reliable, secondary and independent sources", this threshold is not negotiable and it is obviously not met here, and never will be.Folken de Fanel (talk) 12:36, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge – Per NinjaRobotPirate, TRPoD, Folken de Fanel. No independent coverage has been found yet, and the subject doesn't appear likely to generate future independent coverage. Egsan Bacon (talk) 18:15, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge completed - Please turn this into a redirect to keep edit history; I have already merged the content to Dwarf_deities#Laduguer and dropped the unsourced in-universe details, some of which was redundant. Delete is a last option and at this point would only serve to harm the history of the contributors who worked on the article. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:55, 5 October 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) 01:34, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DSC Limited

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

After changing PROD on the basis that notability. An IP removed the PROD, with an edit summary that improvements would be forthcoming. However, another IP tried to re-PROD the article on the basis of lack of notability. I think it is time to bring this here for a deletion discussion. (GKCH (talk) 05:17, 15 September 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:27, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:27, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article is about not notable company. Article written like company promotional and not fulfill Wikipedia criteria.(117.198.141.33 (talk) 15:26, 18 September 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Delete Company is not notable and no major work.(117.198.138.105 (talk) 17:43, 20 September 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Delete article is not meaningful information. Article may be written by who is close to company. Since long time there is no improvement about article and look link very low important article.(117.212.122.213 (talk) 15:14, 22 September 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Delete company has no creative work, which makes notable. 117.198.131.82 (talk) 18:00, 22 September 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) 19:14, 23 September 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:08, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Zephyr Teachout

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

Doesn't meet WP:PROF; only sources are an op-ed, an interview, and her faculty profile.

(While not a reason for deletion, the subject appears to have previously tried to remove the article) L Faraone 18:57, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This "immensely talented and creative scholar" (according to her web page) has not acquired enough GS citations to pass WP:Prof#C1. Too early. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:44, 26 September 2013 (UTC).[reply]

I came to this wikipedia page because I saw this person in the news regarding a supreme court case, and in a non-public mailing list discussion. This entry was helpful. [11] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.20.88.72 (talk) 17:53, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Short of academic impact for sure. The rest of her activities does not pass WP:GEN in my reading.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 14:01, 5 October 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:00, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Howard

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

WP:TOOSOON. One of a series of stub bios by the same editor, about actors debuting in a then-new movie. Single film credit fails WP:NACTOR. Source article on film mentions him only in a caption. Nat Gertler (talk) 18:53, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - One role in one film. Coverage is limited and only from the period of film release. - Whpq (talk) 16:54, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Certainly Too Soon. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:58, 4 October 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 deletion as A7, hoax ... discospinster _talk 14:40, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Himanshu Potlia

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

Fails WP:GNG. Multiple accounts are recreating the article after CSD. IPs being used to remove CSD tags. Article is a reword of Mark Zuckerberg. Ish dar ian 18:51, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete After reading the article I expected to find at least some trivial coverage in independent sources, but found zilch. Seems like a organized promotional effort or even a hoax; should watch out for creation of a page for BuddyChat/Buddychat.Abecedare (talk) 19:16, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Self promotional. Clearly fails GNG. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 19:53, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Apparent hoax, not of the person (who appears to exist) but a very quick google has failed to locate the program/website the article claims he is responsible for. Daveosaurus (talk) 06:09, 24 September 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 Mini-Cons. Miniapolis 00:28, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reverb (Transformers)

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

This does not establish notability independent of Transformers 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) 17:47, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Mini-Cons. Not independently notable. Deletion is also acceptable, but I think a redirect is more useful. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:55, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Mini-Cons per NinjaRobotPirate, no significant coverage from independent secondary sources, fails WP:GNG.Folken de Fanel (talk) 20:36, 4 October 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) 01:36, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Krieger's Sports Grill

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

Non-notable restaurant chain, tagged as failing GNG since February 2013, and orphaned since November 2006. Distinct lack of any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources, so WP:GNG and WP:ORG are not satisified. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:49, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Google News has a few subscription-only hits, but they seem to be from local newspapers. I don't see any national coverage, and the article itself states that this is primarily a local chain. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:06, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Articles like this look like substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. St. Louis is a pretty substantial market and the restaurant has operated in multiple states. I think it's enough. Candleabracadabra (talk) 04:24, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So one tiny, routine local source is enough? Really? Are you serious? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:10, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I said stories like that one are substantial. A Goole News search shows numerous stories like that one with substantial coverage. Yes, I'm serious. The substantial coverage in reliable independent sources establishes notability. St. Louis is a city. The sources aren't small rural papers. Candleabracadabra (talk) 10:43, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whether it is a city or not is irrelevant; it's still a local paper giving local coverage. And the story you presented was neither substantial nor non-routine in the slightest. Basically everything you list in that Google News search is routine, or from local papers, or very minor (usually a mixture of the three). GNG and ORG are not even close to being satisfied. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:51, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Supporting sources are passing mentions, local coverage, and routine announcements of location openings, which don't provide evidence of notability and fail WP:CORPDEPTH. Ibadibam (talk) 18:14, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability sorely lacking.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 deletion A7, no indication of notability ... discospinster _talk 19:57, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Visby (producer/musician)

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

This artist's articles have been deleted previously under

All prior articles were created by various members of the Plastic Beach/Horizontal Law sock farm.

The present article presents no more solid a case for notability than any of the prior articles, except that this article makes the new "claim to fame" as a copyright infringer.

Is there any way to salt a range of pages? WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:42, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Does this qualify for WP:CSD#G4? And a user block? —Largo Plazo (talk) 16:51, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - Recreation of deleted material. reddogsix (talk) 17:15, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't have access to the deleted articles, but if memory serves, the content of this article is significantly different than prior articles. No more notable, just significantly different. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:24, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 23 September 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) 01:39, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fernando Trejo

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

On notability grounds. Champion in a regional title, same with ranking (28th Mexican) Peter Rehse (talk) 15:17, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 15:17, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete BLP that doesn't meet WP:GNG because the only source given is a link to his fight record and he doesn't meet WP:NBOX either.204.126.132.231 (talk) 20:42, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He doesn't meet WP:NBOX and I couldn't find significant coverage to show he meets WP:GNG, although I did find some routine coverage of fight results.Mdtemp (talk) 17:24, 25 September 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 Features of the Marvel Universe. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:40, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Earth-A

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

This does not establish notability independent of Marvel Comics 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) 15:00, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge into Features of the Marvel Universe. BOZ (talk) 16:57, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Features of the Marvel Universe or delete. Either is acceptable. This location is not independently notable. Primary sources can establish that it exists but are not useful for establishing notability. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:44, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Forgotten Realms deities. Miniapolis 00:24, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mask (Forgotten Realms)

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

This character does not establish notability independent of Forgotten Realms 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) 14:58, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge into List of Forgotten Realms deities. BOZ (talk) 16:56, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into List of Forgotten Realms deities or delete. Not independently notable. Primary sources, such as sourcebooks, are not useful in establishing notability. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:49, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
transwiki to some fan site that would love this kind of trivia. As for Wikipedia, the subject fails WP:GNG in that there is no third party coverage of the subject, merely in game/in universe materials by the owners of the IP, and therefore the options are: merge, redirect, or delete. Given that the suggested merge target already suffers from extreme bloat of primary sourced content with only one statement that seems to have a potentially independent source, merging would seem to be an act of shoveling the shit from one corner of the stall to another. Given the disambiguator, the name appears unlikely to be a valid search term as a redirect (and since we have been down that path before if it is determined that a redirect is appropriate, it should be locked.) So my analysis is: delete (with a dash of WP:SALT). -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:30, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close as redirect/merge to List of Forgotten Realms deities. This article was one of a series of related articles initially merged to the above target by User:Neelix subsequent to discussion in October 2010; the merge was reverted by an IP-only editor just over a year later. This suggests tacit agreement that the redirect and merge was acceptable to the majority of editors associated with the wikiproject. In my opinion, a return to the status quo would serve the encyclopedia better than a prolonged and potentially heated debate over each individual deity article. (Note: there are other similar article currently nominated for deletion; I will copy this !vote/recommendation to those affected as well.)Vulcan's Forge (talk) 00:20, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (after trimming) into List of Forgotten Realms deities or Delete, per TRPoD, NinjaRobotPirate, Vulcan's Forge. No significant coverage from independent secondary sources, fails WP:GNG.Folken de Fanel (talk) 20:32, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete. by Jimfbleak as G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement: essay, OR, how-to guide (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 16:50, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Barrett square root

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

Violates WP:NOTHOW; also no sources to show that this method is notable, or anything other than original research. Prod tag removed without fixing these problems. NawlinWiki (talk) 14:43, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:NOTHOW. Also, without sources, we are left to believe that this may well be WP:OR. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:07, 23 September 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:08, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DogHouse Systems

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

I can' find reliable 3rd party reviews or other evidence to show notability . What I can find are lots of blog positings comparing it to Alienware. DGG ( talk ) 14:24, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete A box-assembler has to do something pretty radical to make themselves noteworthy. There's no evidence of that here. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:22, 23 September 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, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Singham 3

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

Fails WP:NFF BOVINEBOY2008 13:40, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete totally unremarkable, possible hoax. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} _{my edits} 23:31, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. NOT a hoax, Taylor, but an article on this sequel is simply TOO SOON. It might be worth a mention in the Singham or Singham 2 articles, but it does not yet have enough coverage for its production to meet to cautions of WP:NFF. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:15, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@MichaelQSchmidt:, there are two franchisees— a) the Kollywood one/Tamil films: Singam, Singam II... and b) Bollywood/Hindi films Singham, Singham 2 (note the "h"). The article has been spelled incorrectly, Bollywood—Kollywood naming mixed up. And you will find sources here Tito☸Dutta 14:50, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have found that incorrect English translation for Indian film titles quite often creates poor search results, thank you. Might you agree that for something planned for 2014, it is still a bit too soon, and that when returned, it really should be under the properly searchable title. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 19:02, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There isn't even got a page on IMDB to provide some sort of confirmation. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:46, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:44, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cherry Bowl Drive-In Theatre & Diner

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

Originally had no sources. Added sources after rejection of prod are nothing but tourism sites that only mention the drive-in in passing and are promotional in tone. The two news sources likely mention the subject only in passing as well. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 12:53, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep—did the nominator do his requisite WP:BEFORE search for sources? A quick Google News search shows that this business has been covered in a Detroit newspaper several hundred miles away, in an article specifically about it. The Chicago Sun-Times also ran an article about the drive-in. Again, it's not a passing mention but an article specifically about the establishment. Another result is an NPR piece about art features the business in its discussions. The nominator hedges his one observation about the sources in the article with a "likely", meaning he hasn't read them to know what they say. Please don't pass judgment on sources if you don't have access to them to accurately judge them. Imzadi 1979 → 19:25, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I have looked at the sources that came up on Google News, and none of them said more than a sentence about the place. Tell me again how it's so "notable". Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 08:20, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - What search term did you use? If you used "& Diner", you've missed out on some possibles. For example, I found two articles from the Detroit Free Press and the Chicago Sun-Times that are about the theatre, and not an article on a wider topic that just mentions it. Imzadi 1979 → 10:23, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep enough coverage in reliable independent sources to meet WP:GNG. While not all of the sources used per WP:V were substantial in length, they address the topic in enough detail to maintain an encyclopedic article. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:52, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did you not look at them? All but maybe one are fluff pieces like this that only mention the place in passing and are really barely-disguised advertisements for tourist traps. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 08:20, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is a tourist spot, so some such are expected. I am a bit more convinced by it being notable enough to be written of in books on tourist traps.[12]mostly as Nothern Michigan's LAST drive-in theater.[13]and other such that describe the place as a unique place and part of the area's history.[14]]. I think we do well to preserve such here on Wikipedia. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:30, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - described by local press as "iconic" and a "landmark". Featured in an editor's column in a major regional paper. I'd say this is significant enough coverage of this subject's notable features. It's not an overwhelming show of notability, but it's just enough to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. Ibadibam (talk) 18:33, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nice finds. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:30, 26 September 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 DavidLeighEllis (talk) 19:55, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Gladiator (1986 film)

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

What happens when you get a notable director and a notable cast, but the film goes direct-to-video? Apparently, the critics avoid it like the plague, and it languishes in obscurity for the next 25 years. I've tried to rescue this article, but there are no reliable sources to establish notability. As an Abel Ferrara fan, I'd appreciate it someone can prove me wrong on this, but it looks thoroughly non-notable, and it fails WP:NFILM. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:51, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable cast and crew, got a full-length review in The Evening Independent[15], is discussed in great detail in this book [16] and was reviewed in VideoHound's Golden Movie Retriever [17]. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} _{my edits} 18:20, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw those when I was searching Google. The Video Hound book is a trivial one-sentence plot synopsis that I discounted as establishing notability. The other book is more substantial, but it's only a few pages in a 200 page book about Abel Ferrara's career. It's certainly not trivial, but it's not quite what I would call substantial, either; Driller Killer and Bad Lieutenant got more than ten times the coverage. This is a book primarily about his notable films, not his lesser known ones. This was not enough to establish notability for me, but maybe others will disagree. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:16, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep WP:NF is met. The sources provided by User:Taylor Trescott are compelling.[18][19][20] and notability is not temporary. The nominator could certainly have used the provided sources to "rescue" this article... but now it will be done by others. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 07:42, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you making this personal? I made a good faith effort to establish notability for this article, as I have successfully done for many other articles, but the sources I located did not satisfy me. If you think that my standards for notability are too high, then you're free to say so and to criticize me for that, but your last sentence was completely unnecessary. If you can't interact with me without being passive-aggressive, then perhaps you should simply stop interacting with me. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:16, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep like MichaelQScmidt says MarioNovi (talk) 07:53, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep per Schmidt, WP:BEFORE failure. Cavarrone 11:06, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, maybe this would be for the best; it seems as though I was wrong. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:27, 25 September 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 deleted by RHaworth as copy-vio. (Non-admin closure). Stalwart111 13:56, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Business Telecommunications Services

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

Promotional article, subject fails WP:CORP Flat Out let's discuss it 10:30, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator - speedy delete due to copy vio. Flat Out let's discuss it 10:36, 23 September 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) 01:45, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ida Bagus Dwi Ambara

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

PROD contested by article creator, no reason given. This article is about a non-notable young footballer, fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:52, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:53, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom, standard non-notable footballer who has not played in fully professional league, nor played senior international. Fenix down (talk) 11:22, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - H has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:27, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Neither league he has played in is fully professional, and thus he fails WP:NFOOTY. In fact, I cannot find a record indicating he actually has played a game for his Japanese team (his profile says he did not play a match last season). So the only possibility is if he has been subject to enough coverage to pass WP:GNG. I could only find a few blog entries and short notices in Japanese, so unless there is significant coverage in Indonesian, there does not seem enough to establish notability. Michitaro (talk) 00:00, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - hasn't played a match in a fully pro league or received enough coverage in reliable sources, which means the subject fails both WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Mentoz86 (talk) 21:01, 28 September 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 and redirect to When Love Takes Over#Airi L version. (non-admin closure) Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:19, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Airi L

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

This is going to sound extremely odd coming from me because I've written all five of the other articles in Category:Cover artists and she passes WP:MUSICBIO criterion #2. But I feel that there is not enough information known about her to justify a standalone article; it is all about When Love Takes Over. Usually, when a cover artist has a hit with a pre-release cover version of a song we redirect that article to the section of the song on the subject, take Ameritz Karaoke for an example, that redirects to Run (Snow Patrol song)#Ameritz cover. Spark Productions redirects to Wake Me Up!#Covers. I believe that merging the content into When Love Takes Over#Airi L version (which is currently in two bits across the page) would be an excellent application of WP:IAR. (For the record; Venus Palermo is a vlogger and Precision Tunes' cover of Payphone was the subject of many newspaper articles. The other three had more than one chart hit so a redirect is inappropriate.) Laun chba ller 09:46, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Could you clarify - are you proposing deletion or a merge to the article on the song? --Michig (talk) 16:31, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am proposing a merge to the song.--Laun chba ller 09:05, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that a merge would be appropriate but this isn't really the right venue as you're not proposing deletion. I would be inclined to boldly merge it and then start a merge discussion on the articles' talk pages if there is any objection. --Michig (talk) 18:36, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I've gone ahead and merged.--Laun chba ller 22:13, 24 September 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) 19:13, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Something wicked this way comes (phrase)

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

There's nothing to be said about this phrase except that it's a line from Macbeth; I can't find any kind of critical analysis of this phrase in isolation. And the "In popular culture" section just duplicates the existing dab page. DoctorKubla (talk) 07:47, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and/or redirect to Something Wicked This Way Comes. I think that all we really need is to merge the article's content to the top of the disambiguation page in a "The phrase _____ was spoken in Act IV scene 1 of Shakespeare's Macbeth. The speaker is the second witch, whose full line is, "By the pricking of my thumbs, something wicked this way comes. The term might also refer to:" That's really all we need for the page in and of itself. The phrase is so commonly used that the list of when it's referred to could be so extensive that a popular culture section would be forever incomplete and take up the majority of the text. It's clearly a notable phrase, but I agree that there isn't any coverage of this specific phrase that really analyzes it outside of the play as a whole. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:24, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and/or redirect to Something Wicked This Way Comes- agree Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:19, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This "article" is the poster child for WP:IPC. Yes, the phrase is used for the titles of various things. Yes, it's a Shakespeare quote. A disamb page with a one sentence lead-in covers all of that. This article has zero sources discussing the phrase because it is not a topic about which there is anything substantive to say (other than scholarly works which discuss every phrase, jot and tittle that may have come from Shakespeare). - SummerPhD (talk) 13:44, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This page is almost a duplication of Something Wicked This Way Comes, which is a proper disambiguation page. Certainly Shakespeare was the greatest phrase-maker of the English language, but unless a secondary source says something substantial about the expression itself the article is not to be. -Borock (talk) 18:46, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the lead (or at least its first sentence) to Something Wicked This Way Comes. The name can be redirected if it is necessary to keep the edit history, or else deleted, as the parenthetical (phrase) seems an unlikely search term. Cnilep (talk) 01:06, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I've just added a line to the DAB, not copied from the (phrase) page, so deletion is fine. Cnilep (talk) 01:36, 24 September 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. —Darkwind (talk) 06:44, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of flora of the Lower Colorado River Valley

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

This page is a mess and it has been that way for seven years. It has never had references. I was going to try to clean it up, but I couldn't even start because there are no references out there to draw on. The list is simply too arbitrary; the "Lower Colorado River Valley" does not seem to have a "flora". We've already got a List of plants by common name (Sonoran Desert), another page which is completely horrific but can maybe be salvaged because there are probably references for the Sonoran flora. If we have that page, we don't need this one. -Tortie tude (talk) 07:12, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Both this and the Sonoran Desert page are worthy attempts but unbelievably shambolic. You're probably right that this one is redundant to the other; it has the hallmarks of a project of momentary enthusiasm, now abandoned and basically unsalvageable. There is a decent ref available, actually, at Desert Museum (a lovely place) but this only makes the point that the list is redundant to the Sonoran Desert list. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:47, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I can't judge the geographical or botanical aspects but, because of lack of references, this article may not be sustainable. If so it should be redirected to List of plants by common name (Sonoran Desert) rather than deleted, keeping the underlying material. We have a plausible search term and the unreferenced material could be useful for future editors of List of plants by common name (Sonoran Desert). Thincat (talk) 08:43, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. Weak keep Unsalvageable mess, and doesn't seem to be notable. The Lower Colorado River Valley itself is poorly defined; I see two possible definitions. The actual valley of the Lower Colorado river (a very small area, and certainly not notable for its flora), or the Lower Colorado drainage basin (a much larger area, but essentially overlapping with Sonora desert). Confusion between the drainage basin and the actual valley carved by the river itself makes LCRV a poor geographic entity to list the flora of. Missouri River Valley further illustrates the confusion inherent in the river valley concept; at one point, the Missouri River Valley is described as covering 1/6 of the US (that's the drainage basin), and at another point is described as 6 to 10 miles wide (that's the actual valley in which the river lies). There are a host of other LCRV lists that might also merit deletion. List of flora of the LCRV (birdwatching), List of LCRV communities (birdwatching), and List of lakes of the LCRV (birdwatching) really don't seem useful. Plantdrew (talk) 17:12, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The LCRV is a Sonoran Desert floristic province. It has already been defined by experts and its floristic ecosystems are well defined. The information can be found in books, journals and native ecosystem websites. There is no need for original research here, Plantdrew. Tortie tude, you might try doing a search if you want to find references. Your speculation as to whether or not there are references is not a valid reason for deletion, but you can tag it unreferenced. [21], [22], [23], [24]. No valid reason for nominating for deletion. --(AfadsBad (talk) 05:04, 26 September 2013 (UTC))[reply]

That's good, but yes, I searched. I meant that I could find no references that listed the taxa of the region. It wasn't "speculation"; I never said I was nominating an article for deletion because I "speculate" there are no references. Your links are good but if you have one that defines the flora of the region, that would be better. At least one that estimates how many taxa there are or sums up the diversity somehow. The original research comes in when you have to glean a list out of 20 different references. That is sketchy. I'm starting to rewrite List of plants by common name (Sonoran Desert), because there are published lists to confirm my own, but I'm only on the Asteraceae so far, so it could take a while (there are 4000 species...) The LCRV fits within it, so if we keep this thing I'll just merge it, no problem. -Tortie tude (talk)

I see; your nomination confused me, because your contributions and articles I have seen you created indicate you are a capable editor and can certainly find plant sources. Yes, all of these describe the plant associations of the Lower Colorado River Valley. I think editors are used to lists of taxa, but the lists can be sourced to and generated from these sources and others that describe the specific ecosystems and plant associations of the region, information that can then be directly got from other sources, although these list the primary sources. The article is poorly developed as is; but, it is an appropriate list to find in an encyclopedia, because the information is available. I would suggest this list probably came from an EIR; and the EIR will list the primary sources for it. --(AfadsBad (talk) 17:33, 26 September 2013 (UTC))[reply]

I should have searched a little more for LCRV before voting. You're right on it's being a floristic region. LCRV also seems to be ornithologically important, but I'd guess the flyway is mostly restricted to the actual valley rather than broader the drainage basin. And there's really nothing in the text of the Lower Colorado River Valley article to suggest a broader definition (as far as I've checked, all the towns, mountains and side valleys listed are within a couple miles of the river). LCRV could use some editing to reflect the floristic/drainage basin definition of the region (which may not be the ornithological definition). And the various "(birdwatching)" lists seem to be approaching WP:HOWTO, but could be redirected to the LCRV article. Plantdrew (talk) 22:37, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article is unfortunately a disaster; and the term is specifically well-defined for the floristics, but is used in a confusing manner otherwise, or so I find out after doing more research. I think it's understandable that it seems like it should be deleted. I think we can all agree to move on, though? I have tried fixing up the article a bit, and I will try to get something on the floristic communities to list the plants by the few major communities. --(AfadsBad (talk) 22:42, 26 September 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Keep. Per AfadsBad, this is an encyclopedic list topic. Hesperian 11:14, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per AfadsBad. -- 101.119.15.118 (talk) 08:36, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of sources. This topic is notable and this article ought to exist if its content can be backed by sources, but it has existed since 2006 and in all that time no one has provided sources to back this content. AfadsBad is right that sources exist and that anyone can add them. I do not know what the period of grace for giving time to add sources should be but I do feel that 7 years is beyond the forgivable period. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:11, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not a reason for deletion so your !vote will simply be ignored. --(AfadsBad (talk) 14:47, 28 September 2013 (UTC))[reply]
Keep This is a notable region of unique interest, which is why there are sources, even though the article needs more of them, along with other improvements. Lists of flora and fauna for such regions are entirely notable and worthy of articles here. AfD is not for cleaning up articles. Goodness, city neighborhoods have their own articles on Wikipedia (which reliable sources also support)—regions of the natural world are also notable. First Light (talk) 21:14, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you could help out by digging up some lists of the flora, I'd appreciate it. I tried to clean it up but couldn't find sources to use, so I nominated it. I'm not sure how to make that more clear? I'd rather not tag it as "unreferenced" and let it sit around looking like it does for another seven years. -Tortie tude (talk) 03:00, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would love to do more digging, but my time here is scant right now. I think that AfadsBad would have the best understanding of the subject to do that. I do think the subject is notable enough to remain here, even in its poor shape, with the hope that it would attract improvement over time. First Light (talk) 16:45, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Flora of Lower Colorado River Valley and prosify. MOre encompassing/supporting information that explains the ecological communities can be included then. The parent article looks too broad as things are. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:24, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This would be better, as the floral communities could be better described for the reader this way. --(AfadsBad (talk) 14:39, 2 October 2013 (UTC))[reply]
Keep — per support as notable above, and its usefulness understanding the bioregion for years, albeit with difficulty. Its creator 'Mmcannis' has been an enthusiastic, and unique to idiosycratic editor regarding the LCRV. Article begs for editing, along with overlapping List of southern LCRV flora by region and meager List of flora of the LCRV (birdwatching). Imperfect but not disposable.—Look2See1 t a l k → 21:04, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - ok, I have redone List of flora of the Sonoran Desert Region by common name because there are sources. I think this page can be redirected to that one. There's nothing to merge, because it is apparently a complete list and LCRV fits within the region. -Tortie tude (talk) 22:19, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose merge, strongly It may fit within the region, but it is a distinct ecological subset, and I oppose a merge. --(AfadsBad (talk) 22:35, 4 October 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 Zebra. Miniapolis 23:32, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Diseases in zebras

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

Unusual to have an article on "Diseases in XYZ animal" (see Category:Animal diseases), instead we seem to use categories like Category:Rabbit diseases on a per-animal basis, or Epilepsy in animals on a per-disease basis, or African horse sickness on a per-disease animal basis. Green Cardamom (talk) 06:30, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Zebra, which currently lacks a disease section. As nom says, the topic is possible but not customary, and without further detail and refs is redundant to category. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:58, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Zebra - yeah, seems like a good faith effort but there's no need to fork this out. Stalwart111 14:54, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep More appropriate as a stand alone article than a category or making the zebra article clunky. A category of zebra diseases would require individual articles and zebra pathogens are more studied for their relationship to horse pathogens and for biodiversity of a herd for conservation, because they are not domestic animals. A stand alone article makes sense. There are plenty of resources. --(AfadsBad (talk) 12:08, 26 September 2013 (UTC))[reply]

I get where you're coming from, but do you really think the addition of around 1500 bytes of content is really going to make Zebra "clunky". There's nothing in the article now that deals with the subject. Shouldn't that be the starting point? Stalwart111 12:43, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think it will, since he article needs written properly. --(AfadsBad (talk) 12:55, 26 September 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Merge to zebra The zebra article needs a disease section, there is not much content here, and nothing prevents this article from being re-created when someone really does have a lot of expansive information to share about zebra diseases. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:08, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT. Mostly unsourced, and very poorly written (and the sole sourced statement appears to describe a single event, rather than evidence of a typical zebra disease). I really see nothing here worth saving. However, a disease section in Zebra is a good idea. -- 101.119.14.102 (talk) 03:45, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Zebra There is a reference, and it appears to contain 100% of the information in the article. Some of the content is anecdotal (like the thing with the leaves) but other data appears to come from actual research. Shouldn't be too hard to look at the reference at figure out which is which if the consensus is to keep. Also "Diseases in Zebras" is like the worst Dr. Suess title ever. PianoDan (talk) 15:54, 30 September 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 The consensus was Redirect. Already redirected.'. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:33, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Luther King Middle School (Berkeley)

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

No exceptional claim to notability; per school article guidelines and common outcomes at historic AfD discussions, middle schools are assumed not notable. The only claim (outside of claims any school could or should be able to make) to notability is that it's name was changed to honor Dr. King, but so were hundreds of other schools all across the country and around the world. Gtwfan52 (talk) 05:38, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This particular MLK may have been the first to be so named. It's also been the site of a notable garden, the Edible Schoolyard. Apart from that, there is the other issue of the intent of the guidelines re: notability. These are aimed at reducing trivia, but not factual information. If a non-trivial article is deemed insufficiently notable by itself but has factual value nonetheless, then the proper thing is to transfer that information to another article, not to blot it out of existence. If followed ad absurdum, Wikipedia would become very small indeed.Tmangray (talk) 05:55, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Berkeley Unified School District, per long-standing consensus as described in WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. As for speculation that it may have been the first school named after Dr. King, we have no evidence of that. Other schools in other cities may have been named after him: three, two months, or even one month after his death. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:08, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please note that redirecting it was exactly what I tried to do, only to have Tmangray revert it. That is why we are here. A redirect to the school district is appropriate even if it was the first school to have its name changed to honor Dr. King, as the changing of the name is an action the school board did to honor Dr. King, and really isn't about the school at all. As for your "Ad absurdum" argument, There are numerous places in Wikipedia policy where bright lines are drawn over notability. A corporation must be discussed in sources that are not all local; a musical group must have charted a song (or one of several other criteria), a professional athlete must have played in the big leagues, not just signed. An author must have a best seller, a professor must be at least a department chair. The Edible Schoolyard project has a wiki page, and seems a very good project. But that doesn't give the school notability either. The elementary school I attended as a child had a GMC bus. That didn't make it notable. Gtwfan52 (talk) 06:27, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To re-iterate from the article discussion page, I'm not that wedded to keeping this an independent article, but I do wonder why Wikipedia would wish to constract and constrict. I always imagined that it would be a wide open communal encyclopedia right down to the most trivial facts. But perhaps it comes down to server space, so trivia is out. My suggestion is that, if conformity to the letter of some policy is required, that some of the basic factual information about the school be transferred to the district article, attached to the listing for this school. I would be happy to do the editing.

One last thing...could you point me to the specific pages where the policy(ies) you cite are discussed? As to both this particular (schools, notability) and the more general one pertaining to permissable degrees of triviality, and also as to liberality of application of policies. I'm not about to engage a debate about them, I'm just curious to see how these things operate. Thank you.Tmangray (talk) 06:57, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:31, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As the party that had initially objected to the redirect has stated that he no longer objects, I have again redirected the article to the school district and would ask that any uninvolved person that comes by here please close this discussion. Tman, the applicable links are WP:SCH/AG for the school article guidelines, specifically the section on notability; and historic outcomes at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Thanks! Gtwfan52 (talk) 19:41, 30 September 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 Joe_R._Lansdale_bibliography#Other_Novels. or merge to a list of books or whatever Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:51, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Something Lumber This Way Comes

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

No evidence of notability per WP:NBOOK. Green Cardamom (talk) 05:35, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Joe_R._Lansdale_bibliography#Other_Novels. I found where it was nominated for a Stoker award, but it didn't win. Other than that all I can find are brief mentions of it here and there, such as in response to a question about whether or not Monster House ripped off the story or not. There just doesn't seem to be any individual notability here to merit its own article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:30, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 23 September 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:51, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kernow Positive Support

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

If it were a national organization, this charity might be notable, but its concerns are local only. DGG ( talk ) 05:32, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seems to be a very minor care provider to HIV sufferers in one county, set up as a charity. No sing of notability. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:34, 23 September 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 Joe_R._Lansdale_bibliography#Other_Novels. happy for the redirect to be overtaken by merging with a list of books article Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:51, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Waltz of Shadows

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

Does not pass WP:NBOOK, lacks multiple reviews in reliable sources. Green Cardamom (talk) 05:22, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Joe_R._Lansdale_bibliography#Other_Novels. I found a Publishers Weekly review, but there wasn't anything else that would show that this book is particularly noteworthy outside of Lansdale himself. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:33, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm, not sure if this is the place to discuss the deletion of this article I created. I feel this is a slippery slope when articles are deleted because some feel this work is not worthy of beinbg included to Wikipedia. Kind of reminds me of Fascism book burning, but you folks have the power, so do what you may...PKDASD (talk) 23:29, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PKDASD, in fact most of the dozens of Joe R. Lansdale article's have the same problem of not being notable for Wikipedia per WP:NBOOK. There is no campaign to delete them, but there is a slippery slope that anyone could AfD them at any time. If I was you, I would do two things: 1. move all this content to Wikia which is made for this type of thing and/or 2. aggregate the books into series articles as much as possible, since series are usually more notable than individual books. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 00:40, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advise. At this point in time I'm weary and leery of this whole deal. I'm feel like I'm ready to tell Wikipedia to fuck off. They whine about not having enough contributing editors. Now I now why. Who wants to put up with this shit? PKDASD (talk) 03:41, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BTW I have no idea what Wikia is. Sorry for the language, but I'm a little pissed right now. PKDASD (talk) 03:51, 5 October 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. soft deletion Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:52, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. Translation Company

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

I don't think they're notable. The awards are essentially saying they might be notable some day in the future, and there's nothing else. DGG ( talk ) 05:17, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 23 September 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. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete votes. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chandratne Patuwathavithane

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

Academic known for a single incident shooting (WP:BLP1E). Vice Chancellor is not top post at this University (WP:PROF Note #6). Green Cardamom (talk) 04:56, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The New York Times article says that vice chancellor is "the equivalent of an American college president" - in other words, the top post. There is some question about the spelling of his name: One reference gives it as S. Patuwatawithana Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:53, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:53, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:58, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to University of Moratuwa Vice Chancellor is not the top post. However I found Past Presidents & Vice-Chancellors of University of Moratuwa which suggests it is top post. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 07:09, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok the Chancellor position is mainly ceremonial/political, the duties are carried about by the Vice which is the effective head of the school. Confirmed by the NYT piece. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 07:17, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw Meets WP:PROF #6 per above. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 07:17, 23 September 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:53, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Imam Ahmad Raza Academy

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

What I can find on this place after a month or so of looking around is an official website, some Youtube videos and blogs mentioning it and...well, that's it really. I am convinced that it's a real place and not a hoax, but other than the fact that it exists nothing seems to come up. The article was created by Shabiha, a now indefinitely blocked sockpuppet which created a veritable fiefdom of articles on non-notable subjects, most of which have now been deleted. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:42, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:45, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for a South African org it has almost nothing in the .za domain space. Same with founder Sheikh Abdul Hadi Al-Qaadiri Barakaati, only mention in *.za is the org's website. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 04:05, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:57, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Usha Sanyal

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

While I couldn't find any reliable sources for this person, the article does claim that they're a part-time lecturer at a university; that obviously seems to fail the criteria for Wikipedia:Notability (academics). All I could really find were pages on Ratemyprofessor and LinkdIn, which hardly seem to help the subject pass WP:GNG, either. This almost seems like a fan page. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:34, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:36, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question. Would the nominator like to give us his opinion of the cites to be found on Google scholar? Xxanthippe (talk) 05:14, 23 September 2013 (UTC).[reply]

It is my understanding that being cited in numerous sources doesn't satisfy Wikipedia:Notability (academics), but rather coverage of the subject themself. My opinion, in that case, is that it doesn't bolster the subject's notability. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:20, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your understanding is wrong. I advise you to study WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:29, 24 September 2013 (UTC).[reply]

I just looked it over another time, and I'm not seeing what criteria the subject would pass. Being cited, as far as I know, doesn't count as having a significant impact in the field; many academics have papers which are cited by others. Assuming you are referring to the criteria regarding the academic's work having a significant impact, could you elaborate on why you feel it would apply here? The citations alone don't seem to make it past the guideline. I'm not trying to be argumentative but I honestly don't see how the subject passed WP:Prof. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:42, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't make WP:Prof#C1 any clearer than it is at present. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:40, 25 September 2013 (UTC).[reply]

I apologize if I have caused any frustration, but I'm looking at the cites again and I'm seeing about half a dozen; much of what I'm getting on Google Scholar is for other individuals with similar sounding names in different fields. About six or seven citations doesn't seem to qualify as "highly cited" to me. I'm just not getting it. MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:37, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at the entry for Devotional Islam and politics in British India in the Google Scholar search linked above. That is clearly by this author, and you will see that Google Scholar says "Cited by 111". That's 111 citations just for the first publication listed, which is loads in the humanities. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:59, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see that; one paper has been cited 100 times. She has several more which have been cited as well. Is that significant in the humanities, then? I can tell you from experience that in the technical and engineering fields, it isn't.

Please understand that I'm not trolling; I am asking an honest question. Perhaps this does count as significant and I simply didn't realize that. And if I didn't realize, then it's because significance hasn't been defined in specific terms in any guidelines or policies I have seen so far. What qualifies as "highly cited"? How many publications cited in how many different tertiary sources? This is an honest question, because I hear you loud and clear when you tell me this counts as a highly cited author, and from my own professional experience I'm looking at it and I'm not seeing it that way. In the absence of a specific parameter, what are we (the community) to do?

Again, I'm not trolling. This is a very serious question. I am not ruling out the possibility that this subject could pass the highly cited threshhold. I am just asking where that threshhold is, because coming from a scientific/engineering background (technical communication is an English major but still technical), I'm not seeing what I understand as significant, highly cited contributions. MezzoMezzo (talk) 12:09, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There has been much discussion of these matters in the archives of WP:Prof which you could look at. Xxanthippe (talk) 12:45, 25 September 2013 (UTC).[reply]

You have my thanks for pointing that out, as I didn't think of that before. There are approximately seven archives; I'm going to take some time off from discussions and look this over. In a day or so, I will review them again and see what I can draw from it. There is quite a bit to go through but hopefully this can provide a clear picture. MezzoMezzo (talk) 12:48, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails the general criteria stated in both WP:BIO and WP:ACADEMIC. Seems like a mere vanity page. Regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 05:30, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 23 September 2013 (UTC) Note: Please consider reading WP:INDAFD which includes some points about WikiProject India AFDs. Those may or may not be applicable here. Tito☸Dutta 14:19, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep getting a book publihsed by Oxford University Press and the number of citations her work is getting indicates notability to me. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:44, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well-cited for her Islamic studies. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:20, 24 September 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Keep - Subject may at present be only a part-time lecturer at the university mentioned but the two books cited have, indeed, attracted considerable attention. She has also done a lot of work in her field at several American universities. Over the years, she has presented papers, attended conferences and organised seminars, relating to her specialist field of study and research, in different parts of the world e.g. USA, Canada, Germany, France, Spain, Morocco and India. Such appearances are usually by invitation only. She has certainly been more active internationally in her subject area than many a full-fledged professor. In fact, had she been a round-the-clock professor, she may not have been able to do all that she has accomplished. To be cited in the E J Brill, Brill Publishers, (Leiden) Encyclopaedia of Islam and the Encyclopaedia of the Qur'an as an authority on a subject is a very special distinction and a rare honour. And she hasn't reached the end of the line yet. I don't think this is a vanity piece. Far from it. I would class her as a true scholar who passes WP:ACAD by virtue of all that she has achieved and thereby meets WP:GNG.- Zananiri (talk) 19:37, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination. After reviewing the talk page archive for the notability guideline on professors - specifically, Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics)/Archive 1, Wikipedia:Notability (academics)/Precedents and Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(academics)/Archive_6#Books_published_by_leading_academic_publishing_companies were the most helpful - I feel that this nomination was an error on my part. I wish there was some clearer way to express this within the guideline itself but after reviewing everything over the past day, I can't think of a better way to summarize it, especially given all the heavy discussion which took place regarding that guideline during 2007 and 2008. As far as I am concerned now, this is a bad article about a notable subject. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:52, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a commendable action. Admin (but not non-admin) closure is now appropriate. The moral is to learn policy in a field before editing in it. WP:BLP and WP:Prof policy is indeed complicated. Best wishes. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:02, 26 September 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 a7, no assertion of notability per WP:MUSIC, no independent sources. NawlinWiki (talk) 14:46, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Signs of Reason

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

Contested PROD without comment or changes. No meaningful coverage by secondary reliable sources found, subject fails to meet WP:BAND. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 04:30, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The band was formed two years ago and self-released two EPs. This almost could have been prodded. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:44, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 23 September 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:53, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Al Jamiatul Ashrafia

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

The bulk of this article is based on one written source, that of Usha Sanyal, an expert on the movement which founded the school. There is another source mentioning a cleric who once attended it, and that's all the source says - only that he attended. The other source is a dead link. This subject fails Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), which even applies to educational institutions per WP:NSCHOOL. The article creator was a now indeffed sockpuppet account which created a great deal of articles on non-notable subjects, most of which have now been deleted as well. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:22, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:24, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per usual outcomes. All universities (excluding degree mills) are notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:19, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure about that? According to WP:ORGSIG, not organization inherits notability, even schools. I'm not asking this passive aggressively, I do actually want clarification; I've seen educational institutions deleted before so this is a bit surprising to me. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:21, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is making any claim of inheriting notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:22, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how to view the statement that usual outcomes lead to all schools being notable. I've looked again and what I'm finding in the guideline is that not even schools are exempt from the notability guideline; were I shown otherwise I would likely withdraw the nomination. Barring that, I don't see how this subject even passes the general notability guideline and I still think the article ought to be deleted. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:39, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

However one might view that statement it's nothing to do with inheriting notability. What is anyone saying that this inherits notability from? Phil Bridger (talk) 10:22, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If all universities are considered notable, wouldn't that be considered an inherent trait of such articles? That was the impression I had from the statement. If that isn't the case, then we (or at least me, since I'm still not seeing the notability here) are faced with the issue of all universities being notable. Perhaps that is the usual outcome, but I don't remember hearing that before now, thus my surprise at the statement. MezzoMezzo (talk) 12:02, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As one of the largest colleges of a sect with over 200 million members I think it can definitely be classed as notable. That has nothing to do with inheriting notability and everything to do with common sense. -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:14, 28 September 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:53, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fatwa e Razvia

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

This book fails Wikipedia:Notability (books). It has been the subject of a single PhD dissertation, which itself doesn't seem notable and its only one. It has won no awards, has no reliable sources establishing its significance (though a whole lot of wordpress blogs and Youtube videos quote it, not RS), is not the source of instruction for any reputable institution of learning and was not written by an extraordinarily notable author. Additionally, the creator of this article is one of many now indefinitely blocked sockpuppets of a problem user who created articles on non-notable subjects via its socks; many of those articles have been hit with speedy, prod or AfD and deleted in the past few months. Just one of many articles on subjects which aren't notable, making claims which aren't supported by reliable sources. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:02, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:04, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete - Author notable but this just is a collection of all his writings so not notable in itself it would appear - SimonLyall (talk) 09:21, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If the author is in fact notable, and if this is in fact the title of one of his books (or a plausible transliteration or misnomer), and if that book is not in fact notable, none of which I have attempted to check, then it should be redirected to the article on the author. James500 (talk) 16:34, 24 September 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 as the Nomination is withdrawn by the nominator. (non-admin closure) SMS ^Talk 03:36, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sahibzada Haji Muhammad Fazal Karim

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

According to WP:POLITICIAN, politicians are considered notable for having served in national, state or provincial legislatures or having garnered significant press coverage. The second would also mandate a pass of WP:GNG, and both are failed here - all that seems to be mentioned in the mainstream press is that he lived, died, and viewed Pakistan as a non-secular state. His only posts seem to have been that of a "vocal member" of two political parties and he organized a protest march. Some people within his local area in Pakistan might have known who he was, but he certainly doesn't seem to have national notability; were the fact that he was vocal significant, there should have been significant coverage, and there isn't. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:52, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:55, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:55, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article says he was elected a Member of the National Assembly of Pakistan. Since this is the lower house of Pakistan's national legislature, how exactly does he not meet WP:POLITICIAN, the criteria of which the nominator has just quoted? -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:32, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The two links which are working for me aren't reporting that, which source exactly states he was a member? MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:24, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure which article you're actually looking at, because all three sources in the article I'm looking at say he was an "MNA". Guess what that stands for! -- Necrothesp (talk) 20:09, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination, I thought that was some sort of a doctoral or honorary title. I see it now, this was a blunder on my part. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:35, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:POLITICIAN. References already in the article confirm that the subject was a member of the National Assembly. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 23 September 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 Withdrawn. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:54, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All India Ulema and Mashaikh Board

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

A passing mention in the source listed on the page, in addition to many mentions from the org's press releases and those of related orgs like Noori Foundation (on the official websites of those related orgs) simply don't help it pass WP:GNG. Important note. All India Ulema and Mashaikh Board are apparently different from the All India Ulema Board, similar to the confusion between Dawat e Islami and Sunni Dawat e Islami. When taken together one might be tempted to think a single organization scrapes by the notability guideline, but from my searching they appear to be two separate, unrelated, non-notable groups. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:28, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:33, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:33, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An alternative spelling: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:22, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm seeing there is The Hindu news story already cited in the article as well as the same links to other organizations with ties to it. Still nothing of substance or even anything else which could be used as a reliable source. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:48, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The first two news results that I linked above are this from The Indian Express and this from The Times of India. Are these organisations with links to the All India Ulema and Mashaikh Board? And in what way do they lack substance or the ability to be used as reliable sources? Phil Bridger (talk) 10:29, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the general search instead of a news search specificaly when you changed the spelling there, which is a major error on my part. In addition to those, I'm seeing at least two more sources mentioning the organization. There isn't much information available on there, but we do seem to have multiple sources now. With that in mind, it's imperative that I withdraw this nomination for deletion. MezzoMezzo (talk) 12:14, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 23 September 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 Withdrawn/speedied. He has been in other roles since then, but nothing that would address the concerns at the last AfD. I'm willing to transfer a copy of the contents into someone's userspace if they're so inclined, but for now this actor doesn't pass WP:GNG. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:15, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ray Stoney

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

Subject fails WP:GNG. Parts to date have been as extra, minor roles. No significant coverage. Article written by PR co. Flat Out let's discuss it 02:26, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WITHDRAWN BY NOMINATOR - article has previously been deleted via Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ray_Stoney. Nominated for speedy deletion. Flat Out let's discuss it 02:35, 23 September 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) 02:03, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gerasimov fractal

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

Will fail general notability guidelines. Created only a month ago, there will be no secondary sources to cite for this material. This is purely OR and does not belong on WP at this time. Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 02:24, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NFT. Also, not that it affects my opinion on whether to delete, is there any evidence that this meets the usual definition of a fractal? It seems to be merely a collection of finite polygonal subdivisions, not even arranged into a sequence, with no obvious convergence to a limiting shape (even if they were arranged into a sequence), and to be mostly filling their bounding box at each step rather than exhibiting anything that looks like having a non-integer Hausdorff dimension (even if there were convergence to a limiting shape). —David Eppstein (talk) 05:22, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Remain. But this fractal is really unique! This article is too important to her to take and easy to remove. Byravcev (talk) 08:20, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact that this is a new kind of fractals. It is therefore very important that the article remains in Wikipedia. Byravcev (talk) 11:11, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wikipedia has a policy forbidding "original research", defined as research that has not yet appeared in scholarly sources or the like. Michael Hardy (talk) 15:33, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - With that, I will not argue. But I insist to leave the article. This fractal opens the road to a very vast and unexplored area.Byravcev (talk) 18:01, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - appears to be OR, no independent sources, no evidence of notability. Gandalf61 (talk) 11:51, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This fractal is notability in the Russian-speaking part of the internet. It is important to keep the data on the first mention of the fractal.Byravcev (talk) 14:00, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - All fractals, which have been described previously (Sierpinski triangle, dragon curve, the Mandelbrot set, etc.) - are iterative. Fractal Gerasimov - not an iterative fractal. Byravcev (talk) 21:27, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per David Eppstein. -- 101.119.15.118 (talk) 08:22, 28 September 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:56, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lesley Lebkowicz

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

Poet, no independent, mainstream coverage of her or the award as far as I see. Nothing on Google Books, neither. The award government page [25] claims her to be "Well-known Canberra poet" - if so, perhaps we can save her article and find other sources. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:05, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:07, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:07, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:07, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Paulknight34b:
- The award was recognised by the then minister for Arts in the ACT http://www.arts.act.gov.au/functions/news_and_events/items/lesley-lebkowicz-wins-2013-act-poetry-prize
- The honour of having a poem on the ACTION bus program is decided by a panel of three eminent australian poets. It is estimated to take the poetry to "about 10,000 bus commuters a day", so provides a mainstream platform for the poetry as well as support for the claim to be "well known" in Canberra. http://info.cmcd.act.gov.au/archived-media-releases/media1b9d.html?v=5798&s=245
- Ms Lebkowicz was recognised as one of 100 notable literary figures for the writers showcase to celebrate the centenary of the founding of Canberra, and the main article has been updated to reflect this.
- The review by Peter Pierce of her latest book in the Sydney Morning Herald, is independent mainstream coverage of the poet. He described her work as an "accomplished verse collection" and the poet as having "an established career" and entitled to "full recognition". http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/books/russian-spies-and-vivid-musings-20130829-2stl1.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulknight34b (talk • contribs) 05:35, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- There should be more detail about the implications or conclusions that are intended to be drawn from the comment "nothing on google books neither (sic)". Ms Lebkowicz's books could be easily put on google books by joining their partner program and submitting them. But we would question how doing so would increase her inherent notability specifically. It would be a sales distribution action taken by her publisher, who has decided to take different distribution options, such as having the books stocked in quality bookstores around Australia and in Paris and London. The guidelines make it clear that notability comes from recognition by people not connected to the author. Being on google books, which can occur as an action by people connected to the author, ought not to imply notability per se. However recognition such as that accorded Lesley Lebkowicz by reviews, including in mainstream dailies which accept without hesitation that she is an established poet, having her poems chosen by eminent peers for public art programs, seen by the whole populace on buses and engraved into the pavements, and chosen for celebrations of the centenary of her hometown, as well as winning or being shortlisted for numerous poetry awards does imply the poet has been considered notable by third parties in a number of spheres. However if there is a rule of thumb that the presence of a book on Google books enhances the author's notability, that can be arranged.--Paulknight34b (talk) 06:00, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The 2013 prize was announced on Regator which is a curated international blog directory and search platform--Paulknight34b (talk) 06:32, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The ACT Prize is competitive with 128 entries, a high recognition for a regional writer. The book The Petrov Poems has received at least three reviews and would pass WP:AUTHOR #3 "multiple reviews". I think with the award and book she just passes notability. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:50, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question Does this qualify as resolved, so that the notice on the article may be removed?--Paulknight34b (talk) 03:54, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No wait until enough time has passed, 1 to 3 weeks usually, then an administrator looks at all the arguments and judges Keep, Delete or No Consensus (effective keep). -- Green Cardamom (talk) 05:42, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:54, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY - based on the three citations, it now shows she's been the subject of significant coverage, thus passing WP:CREATIVE. Bearian (talk) 18:23, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:08, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

James Bond fandom

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

No reliable third-party sources demonstrating the notability of the James Bond fandom. One source covers a fan who constructed a James Bond car, three others are for articles that mention a fan site in passing, and the rest are first-party. The contributors to the James Bond article feel the fandom article lacks any useful content. IsaacAA (talk) 17:17, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are plenty of sources which demonstrate the notability of the fans of the James Bond books, movies, &c. Here's a selection:

The James Bond Phenomenon: A Critical Reader
The Rough Guide to James Bond
Amazing & Extraordinary Facts - James Bond
James Bond in the 21st Century
Ian Fleming and James Bond: The Cultural Politics of 007
Licence to thrill: a cultural history of the James Bond films
Catching Bullets: Memoirs of a Bond Fan
Shaken & Stirred: The Feminism of James Bond
James Bond: The Legacy
A Brief Guide to James Bond
On the trail of 007: media pilgrimages into the world of James Bond
James Bond, Peter Pan, and a sticky night of love: Irony and masculinities in amateur animated videos
Popular geopolitics past and future: Fandom, identities and audiences
Homemade Hollywood: Fans Behind the Camera
The James Bond Phenomenon
The Signs of James Bond
Bond for the Age of Global Crises: 007 in the Daniel Craig Era

Warden (talk) 22:49, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone validate that these works are substantially about James Bond fandom? If so, then this seems like a notable topic. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:45, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have most of these books (at least the Bond ones), and there is very little on fandom in them. - SchroCat (talk) 12:45, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But they do say something, right? For example, Licence to Thrill: a cultural history of the James Bond films, says "The proliferation of James Bond fan clubs and magazines, moreover - most of which focus on the films rather than the original novels - is ample testimony to the existence of an international fan culture for whom the figure of James Bond has a special significance." This seems to be very clear recognition of the phenomenon and tells us that it is both international and substantial. Warden (talk) 23:09, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of the books make passing references, but nothing notable enough. Bond fandom just isn't notable enough. - SchroCat (talk) 06:24, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A passing reference is one that's tangential. When a book about the cultural influence of James Bond talks directly about James Bond fandom, that's bang on target. Warden (talk) 09:04, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not really: it's a book about the cultural history on the Bond films. In the 306 pages of considered and academic prose, you've picked out the one and only reference, and it is a passing and tangential one. - SchroCat (talk) 09:23, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is not the one and only reference in that work. For example, there is a section with the bold-faced title Fan magazines and websites. Q.E.D. Warden (talk) 10:05, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've tagged a few of the much vaunted "35 sources as being dubious and unreliable, not to mention at least one dead one (I haven't checked how many others are also dead or borderline). As for "For example, there is a section with the bold-faced title Fan magazines and websites. Q.E.D.", firstly there is no QED there at all, and secondly, which book are you talking about and which page? If you're going to rely on the reliable sources to prove your point, please could you indicate them clearly for everyone? - SchroCat (talk) 10:48, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The detailed citation is James Chapman (2007), "Fan magazines and websites", Licence to Thrill, I B Tauris & Co Ltd, p. 292, ISBN 1845115155. That section says things like "The following James Bond fanzines are worthy of particular mention ... The articles and correspondence in these publications provide a useful insight into the way that the James Bond fan culture engages with the films." Warden (talk) 11:15, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah - hidden in the bibliography. Again, it is, at best, a passing mention in relation to the strength of the sources used (which are also described as "anecdotal and uncritical"), and this time isn't even in the main body of the book. - SchroCat (talk) 11:23, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a passing mention - [26] -two chapters (Part II of three) devoted to Bond tourism and fans. Novickas (talk) 11:42, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The author of Licence to Thrill describes fandom and its output in the introduction, bibliography and footnotes because he draws on this material in the body of the book. The claim that there is "one and only reference" in that book is false. And, as Novickas, says, there's plenty of other material elsewhere too. What we have here are increasingly absurd demands for a shrubbery. Warden (talk) 11:51, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shrubbery? What utter nonsense: a more apt term would be to do with your straw clutching. You have listed books above that do not refer to fandom, and that is an attempt to mislead. In some of those that do refer to fandom, the reference is in passing only and not a strong enough basis to have an encyclopaedic entry. There is, of course a level of fandom around Bond, but it is not notable enough to have a serious article. @Novikas, partly the same as above, but perhaps renaming the page as "James Bond tourism" would be more accurate, given the lack of serious reliable sources elsewhere. - SchroCat (talk) 12:11, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So can you confirm that Mark O'Connell's Catching Bullets: Memoirs of a Bond Fan is not about Bond fandom at all? --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:22, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/delete Yes, there is a large body of James Bond fans (myself included), but there isn't enough distinct material here to merit a spinoff article.OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:06, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've added some material that barely scratched the surface of the fandom phenomenon. The filming locations are major tourism destinations. The JFK fandom alone is worth it - Garry Wills wrote that the Bay of Pigs invasion seemed crazy 'But it made sense to a James Bond fan.'[27] Lots more material out there. Like an exchange between Anthony Burgess and Kingsley Amis about wanting to be Bond. [28]. Wanting to be Bond is also discussed at length in this book [29]. Novickas (talk) 16:04, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a bunch of trees in isolation make a forest. Notable fans don't make a fandom notable. If, however, Colonel Warden's would be properly incorporated into the article, it would show notability. IsaacAA (talk) 19:33, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/merge Not really a notable enough subject for a stand-alone article. - SchroCat (talk) 12:45, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:37, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. The offered sources do not convince me of its notability, as SchroCat has disputed that they are primarily about this topic. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:59, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Dubious sources, seemingly an attempt to mislead by the author. No core work on the fans. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:57, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the arguments of Colonel Warden regarding sources. BOZ (talk) 12:18, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources have been found covering various things, showing different aspects of the article's subject do get coverage. Dream Focus 15:23, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I hope those who !vote will consider the article's current state. 44 references after some cleanup, tho one or two still need some work. The lead still needs some work too, but that isn't a reason for deletion. Yes, some of the refs use Warden's book suggestions. WRT the suggestion that the article should become Bond fan tourism; the book mentioned above ([[30]) is scholarly and talks about the fans in the context of their wish to tour the sites. There are other sites that just talk of Bond tourism but this book goes further, as you'd expect from a work of this sort. Novickas (talk) 16:45, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it looks like a lot of effort has gone into it. The closer should note that we originally voted on a much different article with much weaker evidence of notability. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:49, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 17 sources should be enough for any one reasonable. CallawayRox (talk) 20:04, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Cleanup and rename: First off, this isn't the title that should be used. Furthermore, portions of the article violate WP:NOT and should be deleted, regardless of whether or not they are sourced p b p 00:07, 26 September 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) 02:05, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Geronimo dos Santos

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

Mixed martial arts fighter with no top teir fights Peter Rehse (talk) 18:08, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 18:08, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete MMA fighter who definitely fails WP:NMMA.204.126.132.231 (talk) 19:46, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Fails WP:NMMA, but on a quick search (some sources were already available in the article) i've found significant coverage in Globo.com (Portuguese), MMAjunkie.com, MMAfighting.com, Sherdog.com, among others (he received coverage mainly by Brazilian media, where he was considered the number one heavyweight until signing with the UFC). In my opinion, this is sufficient to establish notability per WP:GNG. Poison Whiskey 20:57, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Several of the articles mention him not fighting in a previously scheduled match--routine coverage. The comment about being the #1 heavyweight in Brazil was a caption to a photo of the Max Fight promotion championship, which isn't even a second tier promotion. As an aside, would you argue he's better than Brazilian heavyweights like Junior dos Santos, Fabricio Werdum, Antonio Silva, Antonio Rodrigo Nogueira, etc.? The coverage all looks pretty routine to me. Papaursa (talk) 00:49, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course not. I meant heavyweights fighting in Brazilian promotions (however, there are no official rankings that i know). I disagree that Globo.com articles (there are several articles about him) are routine coverage. Those articles don't merely mention his results and/or scheduled fights, but also have details about his illness (hepatitis B) and recuperation. One of them even talks about his life. There are also SBNation.com, Sherdog.com and MMAjunkie.com for the diversity of sources. Poison Whiskey 01:52, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an article from Globo.com (September 2012) which states that he is the number one heavyweight fighting in Brazil. Poison Whiskey 00:48, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unimpressed by the source of the rankings--the International League of MMA. My google search on "International League of MMA" returned a grand total of 3 hits. Also, this article repeats the same winning streak claim objected to by the IP further down. Papaursa (talk) 18:55, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be a Russian organization (according to a machine translator, the Russian name is "Международная Лига смешанных единоборств", and apparently has much more hits), however i'm totally clueless in Russian. The link above was only to reinforce my statement about him being widely recognized as the best heavyweight fighting in Brazil. But even if he wasn't, in my opinion he was able to get enough coverage in reliable sources to be presumed notable per WP:GNG. My thoughts about the reliability of the Globo sources have already been said below. Poison Whiskey 20:23, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He has no top tier fights, so he fails WP:NMMA. Coverage is routine so it doesn't meet WP:GNG. Winning the title of a minor promotion does not show notability. Papaursa (talk) 00:49, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Gained notable coverage from his illness and contract complications with the UFC from both reputable Brazilian and U.S. media sources. Also is listed on the UFC's roster as an active fighter, so the potential for passing WP:NMMA is very real. Worst case scenerio, the content should be moved to someone's sandbox for if and when he gains three top-tier fights. Luchuslu (talk) 14:01, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem with moving the article to someone's sandbox until he passes WP:NMMA. Most coverage seems to be about him pulling out of his scheduled UFC fight because of hepatitis. That seems more like WP:BLP1E. I question the reliability of the Globo article since it says he won 19 straight fights by knockout (at least in my computer translation) and no other source shows a knockout streak longer than 6 in his record.204.126.132.231 (talk) 19:56, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It says "19 straight victories, with 19 knockouts" (I couldn't understand if this refers to the knockout victories of his entire career, but this is indeed a mistake). Sure, but this is a minor mistake in my opinion. I don't think that's enough to make the entire article or Globo articles unreliable, since it is one of the largest media groups of the world and the largest of Latin America. There are also articles about his last couple of fights in Brazil (Globo, R7), his fight against Barnett (SBNation, Sherdog) and his early life and career (Globo). Poison Whiskey 00:48, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:36, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet WP:NMMA and most other coverage concerns him pulling out of his UFC debut with hepatitis. That's BLP1E. It also doesn't seem right to gain notability as a fighter by not fighting. If he gets his 3 top tier bouts than the article can be recreated.Mdtemp (talk) 17:18, 25 September 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. —Darkwind (talk) 06:45, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mario Bros. II

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

Mario Bros. II and these other games have basically been on Wikipedia for years with at best one decent source. There's simply not enough value to the articles at hand to keep them here. For example, the below-mentioned Super Mario War has a dead link to Kotaku, which at the time was identified as a situational source. New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 19:29, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following for deletion for similar notability deficiencies:

Why are you nominating all of these things together? Super Mario War already went to AFD and it ended as keep, as the reliable sources found covering it were determined to be notable. Kindly look over the previous AFD and withdraw your nomination. [31] The closing administrator says "Siliconera is clearly reliable". MakeUseOf and Kotaku are both reliable source as well. All of them review it. Dream Focus 20:04, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relist without bundling; these simply aren't similar enough to support a shared AFD listing. Super Mario War, in particular, has received some attention in the French gaming media (here from the French edition of Tom's Guide, and here from GamerGen). Sources are more limited for some of these other titles, but sorting out which have sources of what reliability will be a mess in a bundled nomination. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:15, 16 September 2013 (UTC) Meh, since this bundled listing is what we've got: keep Super Mario War and Kart Fighter, both of which easily have sufficient sources for inclusion. Neutral on Mario Bros. II: I'm having trouble finding reliable sources online, but what I've found suggests that print sources may have existed at some point. But there must be sources! -- I know, I know. Unofficial Commodore 64 software from 1987 is not a topic strongly covered by the modern web, however. Delete Dian Shi Mali: although there's tons of Google hits for the silly meme, there's nothing that's even in sight of a reliable source. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:42, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I would find it acceptable to remove Super Mario War. However, Kart Fighter and Dian Shi Mali are clearly in the same boat: all three are almost completely unsourced by anything outside of specialist websites. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 20:20, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Have to disagree. Kart Fighter's actually remarkably well-referenced. They're all dumped down in the External Links, hidden between less-reliable sources. GameSpy's Classic Gaming[32], Siliconera[33], Joystiq [34], and Insert Credit[35] (archived from 2003) are not specialist websites. All of them have established staff and editorial policies, and all of those articles are substantial reviews with legitimate commentary. I haven't had a chance to look for Mario Bros. II sources, and you may very well be correct about Dian Shi Mali, but the bundling doesn't help. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:28, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Siliconera and Joystiq are both situational; GameSpy's CG, IIRC, is a fansite that is simply hosted on GameSpy; the only one with real reliability is Kohler's review. Is one decent source really enough to justify that an article exist? - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 22:20, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Joystiq article is written by a Managing Editor of the site. The Siliconera article seems to be by a paid staff member also, not just some random person's personal bit tossed up. Dream Focus 22:46, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not at all sure what you mean when you refer to sources as "situational". As for Classic Gaming, it has a declared staff list; despite the pseudonymous byline, the article in question was written by Kevin Bowen, who was definitively a writer for GameSpy itself (as well as the original contributor to Classic Gaming). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:01, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As stated on WP:VG/RS, Siliconera is only of value for either their own interviews or for Japanese-exclusive games. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 19:46, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the case could be made that a Hong Kong-based bootleg primarily distributed in East Asia is, broadly speaking, in the same area of expertise as "Japanese-exclusive games". Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:42, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Super Mario War and Kart Fighter since they both have ample coverage in reliable sources, as mentioned above. Dream Focus 08:28, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I have to wonder why such small subjects skirt by on having very, very few examples of notability. For a fictional character for example, I would never release an article that only had as small a list of reliable sources as these articles utilize. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 19:46, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Much, much worse referencing exists than these. With that said, ~~I'll be working on a rewrite of Kart Fighter over the next few days.~~ Time permitting, I'll try to clean up Super Mario War also. Both are capable of having fairly well-referenced articles. Neither do at the moment... Squeamish Ossifrage 22:42, 17 September 2013 (UTC) Kart Fighter rewritten. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:26, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Because most people come to Wikipedia to read articles like this, not to find an excuse to destroy them. They have sufficient examples of notability. And no one cares what articles you would or would not release. If you had it your way half of Wikipedia would probably be deleted. Please don't waste everyone's time nominating things that clearly pass the General Notability Guidelines. Dream Focus 00:19, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Given the improvements on Kart Fighter and the disparity between Super Mario War and MBII/Dian Shi Mali, I plan on relisting with only MBII and DSM. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 06:00, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:30, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How about a Merge into a page about unofficial Mario (franchise) video games? They might not be independently strongly notable, but they're certainly about a notable topic and as they might be better when bundled, as the nominator thinks. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 01:02, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Are you suggesting a merge for all of them? Two articles clearly pass the general notability guidelines, so no reason not to just keep them. A lot of content would be lost if they were merged. Dream Focus 02:03, 25 September 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. No prejudice towards a merge discussion. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:04, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mrajeeb Al Fhood refugee camp

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

Not sufficient content to merit a separate article. Should be merged into Refugees of the Syrian civil war. Ibadibam (talk) 23:36, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Current residence for thousands. A merge can certainly be considered if there is an appropriate target. Candleabracadabra (talk) 01:38, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you find the proposed target to be appropriate? Ibadibam (talk) 21:29, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 00:25, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:20, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Found multiple references for this, in effect, it is a town. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:03, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you provide the sources you found? Ibadibam (talk) 21:07, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Searching in the Roman alphabet is very difficult due to the many possible transcriptions of the name, but I found these sources that confirm that this is a major population centre with much of the infrastructure of a town: [36][37][38]. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:43, 26 September 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.