Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 February 12

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 11 February	13 February >

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 keep. Mojo Hand (talk) 05:25, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Pitylak

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

WP:BLP1E, other not notable promotional content has been reinserted about Unique Influence Jppcap (talk) 00:14, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I had no difficulty finding multiple WP:RS sources on this guy on the first two pages of hits from a Google search. His background may be unsavory, but it clearly meets WP:GNG and WP:BIO. And I am just not seeing this as a promotional article. Reference to his current doings would seem reasonable in a BLP. And that reference is pretty matter of fact to my reading. I have occasionally been accused of being too quick to pull the trigger on suspected SPAM articles. But this just doesn't look like a promo article to me. It's short and to the point, just the facts thank you very much. And as already mentioned the subject is clearly notable. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:35, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep When the Associated Press calls a person "One of the world's most notorious spammers" and other reliable sources describe him in similar terms, that amounts to notability. A multi-year spam campaign is not "one event". There is nothing promotional about the current version of the article, and if anything promotional is added, it can be corrected by normal editing. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:27, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, withdrawn (non-admin closure). Stalwart111 03:36, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dorothy Roberts

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

No signs of notability demonstrated in the article, or in a Google news search Dream Focus 23:37, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but please rewrite it somebody! She meets WP:SCHOLAR #5 as holding a named chair at one of the US's most distinguished universities: George A. Weiss University Professor of Law and Sociology and the Raymond Pace and Sadie Tanner Mossell Alexander Professor of Civil Rights at University of Pennsylvania.[1] Media coverage: reviews of Fatal Invention[2][3][4][5] and brief[6]; of Killing the Black Body[7]; and Shattered Bonds[8]. Substantial coverage in Law & Social Inquiry Vol 20 Issue 4[9]. Other brief press[10]. Interviews[11][12]. The article is full of peacock language and unsourced claims (everything's "award winning" and "influential") and reads like her PR blurb, but she merits a proper article here. --Colapeninsula (talk) 23:59, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good finds! I'm withdrawing my nomination then. Dream Focus 00:30, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Stifle (talk) 14:54, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hoffman's Chocolate

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

Promotional article for local company. Trivial references, amount to either local PR or mentions DGG ( talk ) 23:34, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep while many of the references here are from local sources, coverage by the Wall St Journal and Bon Apetit demonstrate notability. RadioFan (talk) 01:39, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 23:54, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, coverage in the WSJ and Palm Beach Post is good enough to satisfy me that they meet the WP:GNG. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:23, 22 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. I considered a "no consensus" close as there is not a consensus to delete, but "keep" is more appropriate as many of the deletion !votes are really arguing for a merge and acknowledging that the topic is part of a valid topic. The space between the "keep" and "delete" arguments is thus fairly characterized as a content dispute that should be resolved through normal discussion and editing. postdlf (talk) 22:54, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chiropractic treatment techniques

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

~~Delete~~ Keep as improved in utility and readability as absolutely unreadable (F-K score of 7 - and only 3% of Wikipedia articles are less readable (many of which are lists). If no one can understand what an article says, then clearly we are better off without it. Collect (talk) 23:43, 12 February 2014 (UTC) Collect (talk) 22:46, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Makes good sense to me and seems well sourced. (Not saying it can't be improved.) If it's a POV FORK, it's probably because the chiropracter haters bullied the info out of the main page. Don't think that's what WP s/b about. My sympathies to whoever defended this on the main page and eventually resorted to this. WP is a WORLD encyclopaedia. If this can't stay, what other hugely important medical info that doesn't have the Americans' AMA FDA blessing is also being squeezed out? Paavo273 (talk) 00:09, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This argument boils down to disagreement with our policies. Creating a POVFORK to avoid scrutiny and compliance with our content policies is never acceptable, and it's certainly not a reason to keep this article. — Jess· Δ ♥ 15:09, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep per Paavo273. Another effort at censorship by the fringe cabel. GregJackP Boomer! 00:23, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
keep not much reason to further scale back the Wiki's already scarce medical knowledge resources that haven't already been lost down the memory hole. misguided deletionism at best; inexcusable at least. 74.51.150.221 (talk) 03:18, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't see a valid reason for deletion. If there is a problem, then be bold and fix it. Take a look at these two versions: As I created it, and after User:Eubulides added more from the main article. It wasn't until later that significant bloat occurred. I suggest that you simply go through and remove any unsourced and undue promotional language, if that's the problem. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:32, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—the article seems decently sourced, and the various techniques mentioned should each have reliable sources ~~showing notability~~, or that particular "technique" ought to be removed. I concur with the previous commenter that much of the article is badly written, but that is no reason to AfD it. Perhaps a request to the Guild of Copy Editors would be in order. N2e (talk) 13:33, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

N2e, keep in mind that individual items in an article do not have to be notable, only reliably sourced. Notability only applies to article creation. Otherwise I like your suggestion about the GOCE. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:12, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the thought, Brangifer; I see what you mean about the notability/verifiability distinction. So I've reworded my previous comment.

On the GOCE idea, I will try to remember to request a GOCE copyedit once the AfD discussion is over. If I forget, anyone is, of course, free to request at the Guild of Copy Editors—Request page. N2e (talk) 17:54, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The comments above indicating there is "no reason" to delete are baffling. Being a POVFORK is not only a reason, it's a really good one. The content is already duplicated in a slew of other articles, so this one isn't adding anything to our coverage of the topic. If, as indicated above, the reason for the article is to dump content which was deemed in violation of our content policies in the main article, that's a reason to remove it, not to keep it. — Jess· Δ ♥ 15:09, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The content was not moved because it violated any policy, but because including it all in the main article created a weight issue. That is a legitimate reason for creating a fork article. (BTW, you say this is "duplicated in a slew of other articles". If ALL this content is duplicated there - and it's not - trim that content to a minimum, because this is where we go in depth on that topic.) That is also the reason we have so many chiropractic-related articles. The main article got too bloated, so the fork articles are legitimate spinoffs. Otherwise, I'm not saying it couldn't be trimmed and improved. It could definitely benefit from some copyediting. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:12, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or delete by policy - obvious POV fork - David Gerard (talk) 17:57, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Turn into a list/merge, or delete Looks like a fork (I would suspect POV, but per WP:POVFORK don't want to call it that because it isn't a blantant one), but why don't we merge its content with that on the Chiropracy page and turn this page into a listing of all of the other subpages on individual chiropractic treatments that the original poster recommended? To me, that seems like the best way to resolve this dispute. However, as a content fork, I would support deletion if no merging/listing consensus is reached. Cogito-Ergo-Sum (14) (talk) 23:22, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep is well-sourced and I don't see a reason why alternate medicine shouldn't also be covered on wiki, in separate articles by topic if necessary. LT910001 (talk) 03:06, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-- agree with LT above that some of the sources appear sound, however I'm struggling to understand how the scope of this article is distinct from the main article. There does appear to be POV issues in the article since the general tone is different from how chiro is discussed on the main article ... chiro is such a controversial topic that I think it is better to have it all in as few places as possible so neutral editors can better keep an eye on things. Lesion (talk) 13:53, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article is an unintentional FORK that is mostly about spinal manipulation. Chiropractic treatment techniques are discussed at Chiropractic#Treatment techniques. There is no need for a separate article to promote a fringe topic. Side note: I thought it was odd the text currently says: "Spinal manipulation appears effective for chronic low-back pain.[11]" QuackGuru (talk) 05:20, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- comment: That sentence is per the sources cited. Sorry -- but we do like to use what the source actually states. Collect (talk) 14:27, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This was not a properly executed WP:CFORK. What needs to happen is an effective merge of usable content back to the article from whence it supposedly came. If it is accepted by the users editing there, and the content becomes unmanageable and long, then and only then should a spin-off be considered. Right now this is a WP:POVFORK. jps (talk) 11:56, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note This article dates back to 2 December 2007. It is more than six years old ... calling it a POVFORK now is silly. [13] Collect (talk) 14:32, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back to chiropractic. POV forking is not an approved method of dealing with content disputes. Stifle (talk) 14:55, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- IOW you feel that a 6 year old "content dispute" was the reason for this article, and it takes over six years to notice it? Collect (talk) 15:01, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mojo Hand (talk) 05:30, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vermont 251 Club

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

An organization whose members try to visit all 251 towns and cities in Vermont. May not have the nature and quality of coverage to satisfy the notability guideline for organizations . Edison (talk) 23:02, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. How long does it take to see all 251 towns and gores in Vermont--two days? Just kidding. To my own surprise, I find not only the extensive Vermont coverage you'd expect (such as [14]) but also feature articles in the Boston Globe [15] or [16] and the Los Angeles Times [17] and an Associated Press piece in the The Daily Gazette (Schenectady) [18]. According to the book Vermont: A History (W. W. Norton & Company, 1984), the group had 5000 members and "draws huge crowds to its annual dinner each summer" in Montpelier. [19] --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:15, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets WP:ORGDEPTH per several of the sources presented above by User:Arxiloxos, such as [20], [21], [22]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:27, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vermont-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:38, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:38, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Siege of Sarajevo. Stifle (talk) 15:16, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1996 Sarajevo tram attack

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

Virtually the entire text of this article can be found in a section of the page Siege of Sarajevo. Thousands of events similar to this one occurred during the siege, which is why I fail to see the notability of this attack in of itself (even if it did occur after the war had ended.) 23 editor (talk) 22:59, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Siege of Sarajevo. That article isn't sectioned particularly well right now, but once that gets fixed, this can become a {{R to section}}. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:49, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is about an act of war happened after the Dayton Agreement so was an important fact.User:Lucifero4

You would support having an article for every single incident during the Siege of Sarajevo? 23 editor (talk) 19:37, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An attack after the Dayton agreement is different fromothers attacks.User:Lucifero4

Not particularly. 1 killed and 19 wounded, while tragic, is not very different from thousands of other attacks throughout the city from 1992 to 1996 in which 10,000 people were killed. The fact that it was after the Dayton agreement doesn't change that. There were dozens of incidents after the Kosovo War, for example, in which people were killed by both ethnic groups involved in that conflict, yet not each incident merits a Wikipedia article. Like I said, virtually the entire text of this article can be found in a paragraph at Siege of Sarajevo. 23 editor (talk) 22:05, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Lucifero4 is right this happened after the Dayton Agreement and is by that fact a notable event. But more input needed.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:42, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@BabbaQ: It may have happened after the Dayton Agreement, but it did not happen after the Siege of Sarajevo (which was declared over on 29 February 1996). Need I say more? 23 editor (talk) 18:35, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Siege of Sarajevo. Its a stubb, it did happen during the siege of Sarajevo. I see no reasson to delete it but its way better to merge it with the already existing article. I also fail to see what Dayton agreement has to do with this article. Dayton was an agreement but the siege ended 29 of February not the same moment Dayton was signed.Stepojevac (talk) 19:48, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:33, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Charlotte Wolff

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

Almost no content after removal of copy-vio material. Only a single ref and no assertion of any special notability. It would be as easy to create a new version as to rescue this one. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:42, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

very weak keep - Seems to have written several books on sexology.-^[1] Antonio AntonioMania Martin aca 14:25, February 13, 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm finding both her writings about hands as a clue to personality and her advocacy of bisexuality as the natural human norm written about in the popular press, and in JSTOR I find a number of reviews of her books plus a full-length interview with her and extended mentions in feminist historical work. I'll be expanding this to demonstrate and use these sources; in my opinion she meets the general notability standard. (The German Wikipedia article is lengthy but since there has been copyvio, I'll keep things clear by building up a briefer article myself rather than translating that.) Yngvadottir (talk) 19:01, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you'll be expanding it, now is the time. Agricola44 (talk) 16:16, 18 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Keep or delete as just ridiculously incomplete. I agree that she's showing up as notable, a biography of Magnus Hirschfeld, various sexology stuff and [23]. The article is terrible however. Barney the barney barney (talk) 19:10, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, noteworthy and notable deceased individual. — Cirt (talk) 02:33, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As it stands, there is no assertion of notability and no sources. Is text in the process of being added? Agricola44 (talk) 16:49, 17 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus seems to be that he doesn't meet the WP:GNG or WP:NFOOTY. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:25, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Mensah

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

Restoration of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was that he is not prove[n] to have played in a fully professional league. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:09, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:10, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Userfy/Draftify~~Moved to delete, see below Mensah has played for a Superattan team, and is signed with an Allsvenskan team. While of course this doesn't mean that he'll ever appear for that Allsvenskan team, it seems pretty likely. Thus I think it's perfectly fine to userfy this for awhile, at least until the season gets going. Maybe people from the football project will know better than me. The article creator, who just announced his retirement in response to this nomination, had also suggested that Superattan should be considered fully professional. I'm not really capable of making that assessment, but I might be willing to change to a keep if a convincing argument could be made for it. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 11:02, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per my comment above. Userfy/draftify isn't a viable outcome if the article creator is retiring, and there's no reason to believe otherwise. While I feel for him being driven away by the situation of having an article he created deleted—it was PRODded without any notification—the clear interpretation of WP:NFOOTY is that Mensah is not yet notable. Obviously I still endorse a userfy/draftify outcome should the article creator evince an intent to stay around. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:14, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Restore if/when either of these are met. Giant Snowman 13:14, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per GS. @Pomelotree: should be aware that this does not mean the article is gone forever, merey that the subject doesn't meet the necessary criteria right now. If he does play then the article as it currently stands can be restored. Fenix down (talk) 15:20, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The author appears to be claiming that Superettan is a professional league. The article claims Mensah has made 27 appearances in Superettan. If both of those are true then the article meets WP:NFOOTY. Spinning Spark 02:47, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Spinningspark: the former is not true, making the latter irrelevant. See WP:FPL. Giant Snowman 18:23, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It would be helpful to see an explanation of why it's not true rather than a "nope" from project members. This is why people are getting driven away. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:05, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - @Mendaliv:, not sure what you mean by "true"? Surely you mean verifiable? The league is not verified as fully professional because it does not appear on the list of fully professional leagues. As such consensus is that it is not fully pro. The FPL list is by no means a perfect solution to discussions such as these, but the leagues listed are all sourced and general consensus is that it is the best we have at the moment. Changes to this list are always welcome to be proposed at WT:FOOTY and that is the appropriate arena for such discussions, where all members of the project are likely to see such a thread rather than a single player's AfD. I would invite @Pomelotree: to start a thread there and cite his sources so that they might be discussed. Fenix down (talk) 15:38, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I mean "true" in the same sense that GiantSnowman meant it. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:49, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: So much has been added. OccultZone (Talk) 15:46, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - such as what that would enable a GNG or at worst NFOOTY pass? Fenix down (talk) 18:04, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 05:37, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Xanadu Range

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

This appears to be a hoax, I was not able to find any sources that support the existence of this mountain range. -- JamesMoose (talk) 21:47, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

delete as patent hoax; I too could find no mention of this range. Mangoe (talk) 22:54, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

this page is to support the further discovery of the Purcell Mountains of South-Eastern British Columbia. This is a new classification for the area to distinguish the mountains around Kimberley. Note that no sources have been found by the Wiki staff, because it is a newly designated area. Please DO NOT delete this page for the reason of the further exploration and recreational promotion of this area. Thank You.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.66.12.225 (talk)

Designated by whom? Wikipedia is not for things you made up one day. Mangoe (talk) 13:28, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Place names in BC are designated by the BC Geographical Names commission. They have no entry for Xanadu: [24] The Interior (Talk) 17:26, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails verifiability in spectacular fashion. An assertion was made in the article after it was nominated for deletion indicating that the article is for "promotion of outdoor activity around the Kimberley area". -- Whpq (talk) 17:04, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Designation appears in no online or print sources on BC geographical features. If there is a push to rename part of the southern ~~Selkirks~~Purcells, I've heard nothing about it. Extremely premature, if it is legit. The Interior (Talk) 17:33, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 14:55, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Web-sales automation

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

Concept appears to be neologism attributed to Daniel Hristov Hristov (?). Article does not establish the notability of the subject through the requisite significant coverage from reliable sources independent of the subject.

Creator, a single-purpose account, moved article out of userspace with the summary: "Page is completed and verifiable via references", yet the article still contains no references.

An article about Hristov was recently nominated for speedy deletion under A7 criterion "as an article about a real person, individual animal, organization (band, club, company, etc.), web content or organized event that does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject." So if the subject is not considered notable for our purposes, is the unreferenced concept he created considered notable?

I probably would have nominated this article for speedy delete under A11, but I have no evidence to suggest the article creator knows the subject. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:50, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete Got very few hits at all on this, and the only promising one traced back to a press release sort of thing about, yes, Hristov's company. Mangoe (talk) 23:00, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I don't doubt he coined it, but there's not a lot that says "no seriously, this is a thing". Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:12, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. I noticed this a while back, and concur with the rationale for deletion. Appears that this and the related bio spring from a promotional intent. JNW (talk) 02:57, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:33, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Stewart (basketball)

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

No sense of an notability yet the article has been around since 2007. Only one ref that shows that he exists. Fails all notability guidelines. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 20:18, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Actually, head coaches (as he was at UC Davis) have always met WP:NCOLLATH. Clear keep. Rikster2 (talk) 01:10, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Division 1 college basketball coaches meet the notability guidelines. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 04:57, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as NCAA Division I men's basketball head coaches pass WP:NCOLLATH. Jrcla2 (talk) 03:19, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - What part of WP:NCOLLATH does this coach meet? --| Uncle Milty | talk | 01:21, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 15:02, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Stricker

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

I don't think this person is sufficiently notable for inclusion. The article a copy of his website (apparently OTRS permission has been sent so G12 does not apply) but there is nothing to demonstrate notabiliity. A search for signigficant independent coverage in reliable sources turned up nothing. SmartSE (talk) 19:18, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question is the problem, because I created this Biography and placed a copy on our website and on Wikipedia? Because I can easily rewrite either. Or is the problem you find Kim Stricker as not being notable enough? Why can his pears Babe Winkelman, Al Lindner, Skeet Reese to name a few have wikipedia pages but Kim Stricker can't? Kim Stricker is 27-year veteran of all major bass fishing tours, he has had his TV show on cable networks for over seven years, Kim has created multiple bass fishing DVDs productions that sell all across the world. You may have just seen a copy of a biography of Kim Stricker on his website, but the wikipedia page is just a beginning. There are so much more notable stuff that can be added and will be added, but I first need the approval of a "notable person - Kim Stricker" known throughout the world as the Bass Fishing Underwater Videography Specialist.

Google Search - Kim Stricker Kim Stricker DVDs Reviewed - By Outdoor Writer Brad Wiegmann Kim Stricker DVD Productions on Amazon.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wkbman (talk • contribs) 19:55, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for the confusion and I will continue to add credible references to the Kim Stricker Biography. Please keep this living person biography going. There will be many other article to come off and link to Kim Stricker. Would you prefer me to recreate my biography on our website so it is not a direct copy? I can site references to many of the facts in the biography and I will continue to do so.

This was my first wikipedia article and i now realize the time and effort it takes to make a good article with notable references.

Thank you, Danny Stricker — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wkbman (talk • contribs) 20:38, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep * Again I apologize for not siting my references properly on this biography of Kim Stricker. I have since updated many parts of the article to contain proper references from all over the web. I will continue to update Kim Stricker and make sure that there are notable facts with references. Thank you for your consideration to keep. Wkbman (talk) 02:26, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:NOTDIARY. Firstly, the author is too closely related to the subject. Because of that, the article is entirely too long and filled with information that no one not affiliated with the subject, or fishing for that matter, cares about. Secondly, WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Wikipedia articles need to be encyclopedic, concise as much as possible. The subject is not that much of a public figure to have what is listed about him. Finally, notability. Most of the subject's references are from his website or the little-known TV show (which also does not have an article). Sources need to be independent and from notable news organizations. If all that was fixed, I would still stand by my vote. — Wylie pedia 15:41, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not seeing significant independent coverage of this individual, the sources in the article are mostly from those affiliated to the subject. Valenciano (talk) 16:40, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to 2014 Peshawar cinema bombings. Anyone finding content in this article that is not in the redirect target is of course welcome to merge it. Stifle (talk) 15:02, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2014 Shama Cinema bombing

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

Per NOTNEWS and notable for its standalone article. Instead it can go at List of terrorist incidents, 2014 Lihaas (talk) 18:57, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, definitely fails WP:NOTNEWS and it doesn't need it's own article. Aerospeed (Talk) 19:13, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Another article about this incident exists at 2014 Peshawar cinema bombings. • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article already exist and was already written as joint. The sources were quite low for the fist attack so I merged them into one (considering that they all taken in the same place and used the same tactic and target).--Mishae (talk) 20:53, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy merge and close this discussion. As long as this discussion is ongoing, we cannot change the article to a redirect. If you feel 2014 Peshawar cinema bombings should be merged, the correct target would be Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2014 where more detail could be given then at List of terrorist incidents, 2014, where incidents are already listed. See WP:MERGE for the correct procedure. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 21:12, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you miss understood what I said @Richard-of-Earth:. The article was already merged by me. We should redirect 2014 Shama Cinema bombing to 2014 Peshawar cinema bombings, since that will be a correct merge. I'm sorry if I sounded confusing. The 2014 Peshawar cinema bombings, in my opinion, is a stub article that is closer to a start and will be one when more developments become available (such as arrests and aftermath). So, no, I don't think that consensus will be in favour of merging the 2014 Peshawar cinema bombings article, but probably wont mind to do it with the currently discussed one.--Mishae (talk) 03:37, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - You mis-understand me. I am assuming the people who think this article needs deleting might feel that 2014 Peshawar cinema bombings also lacks notability and fails WP:NOTNEWS, although I do not particularly. My main point is that now that we have started a delete discussion for this article, we cannot do anything for a week to give everyone time to discuss it. The nominator and others who have voted should change their votes to Speedy Merge and we can just close it. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 09:34, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - I already moved the refs from 2014 Shama Cinema bombing to 2014 Peshawar cinema bombings so it shouldn't be an issue.--Mishae (talk) 15:35, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Propose redirect Now, since you brought this argument to the table I will change my stance as well. However, I will propose redirecting 2014 Shama Cinema bombing to 2014 Peshawar cinema bombings rather then to the list of Terrorist attacks in 2014, let alone in a specific country (Pakistan in this case).

- Comment People who want to remove anything per WP:NOTNEWS are forgetting that every event that happens now (that is war related) will be an encyclopedic material now or later. For example, Iraq War was mostly news too, and still have refs from various news sources. Doesn't make it biased, does it? If people here don't believe me because its old, then lets look at modern events. That article too was a part of Wikinews, but then was promoted to an encyclopedic article.--Mishae (talk) 15:35, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment @Mishae:, the difference is that the Iraq War was a extremely notable event, and was a series of ongoing events that had widespread effect across the whole world, as the article will state. These bombings, however, are an isolated event, and as the nominator said, it could be filed under terrorist incidents in 2014. Aerospeed (Talk) 21:38, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, I have no objection to the 2014 Shama Cinema bombing nomination for deletion and if someone wants to merge it, feel free to do it too. Either way its good. However, such articles like 2014 Peshawar cinema bombings is actually quite good article on its own. Your opinion? Either way, its time to close this discussion by either merging or deleting the above article and live 2014 Peshawar cinema bombings as it is. Because 2014 Peshawar cinema bombings are part of War in North-West Pakistan.--Mishae (talk) 22:06, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 05:42, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Woodhams

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

I don't see significant independent coverage which would sustain a claim to notability _nonsense ferret 17:14, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete only editor in recent history is a single purpose account and the article fails wp:gng--Jeffrd10 (talk) 18:42, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The head of a fairly minor company.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:21, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 15:15, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of master's degrees in financial economics

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

Completing nomination on behalf of IP editor 174.3.125.23, whose rationale was posted on the article's talk page and is copied verbatim below. On the merits, I have no real opinion - except that the title itself is generic enough that it might end up being a useful redirect to something. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:45, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Violates WP:LINKFARM. The page is purely of external links, while the only internal links are of the institutions that offer the degrees. There is no discussion of the degrees offered, if it amounted to it.174.3.125.23 (talk) 10:57, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete I've not come across many linkfarms, but this sure is one. Mangoe (talk) 23:03, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:10, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Link farm. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:10, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At its core, this is a list of notable universities that all grant the same notable degree. "Linkfarm" complaints seem squarely centered on the over prominence the list's current form gives to external links, but that seems fixable and thus not a valid deletion rationale. One way to solve that would be to remove the external links. Another way would be to keep the external links but balance it with further information such as the year the programs started, year discontinued (if applicable), or number of degrees granted to date (if known) so as to properly annotate the list. Would it clarify all of this better if it were renamed something like List of academic institutions that grant masters financial economics degrees? That would seem to satisfy both the navigational and informational functions of lists per WP:LISTPURP. postdlf (talk) 17:59, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are a number of degrees listed which are "Economics and Finance", "Applied Economics", "Applied Finance and Economics", "Applied Financial Economics", etc.. Do these actually fall under this WP:SAL or is this article rather WP:SYN?174.3.125.23 (talk) 12:41, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 15:03, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chinatown, Chicago (disambiguation)

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

The following pages are also nominated for deletion for the same reason posted below:

Links on page do not meet criteria at WP:DPAGE and there is no need for a disambiguation page under these titles. Previous deletions have taken place for Chinatown, Boston (disambiguation) and Chinatown, Los Angeles (disambiguation) for the same reason. –Dream out loud (talk) 15:31, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the disambiguation pages for Chicago and Houston. The disambiguation pages seem to be in keeping with the guidelines. Chicago has two active "Chinatowns" with restaurants and ethnic stores, as well as large Asian populations. The disambiguated term might refer to either. In Houston, there is apparently a historic one as well as the active one, so a disambiguation page is appropriate and helpful to readers. No opinion on the one for Washington DC, since one is outside the city/district. Edison (talk) 23:46, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Both those pages should be deleted with a hatnote placed on the page. There's only one link to be added to the hatnotes so an entire separate disambiguation page is not necessary. –Dream out loud (talk) 02:21, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per WP:TWODABS. Locations and metro stops within a Chinatown are not ambiguous to the location they serve. Taking those out, nothing is left for these but a primary topic, and at most one other topic. This can be dealt with by a hatnote. bd2412 T 15:22, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Chinatown on the south side of Chicago and New Chinatown on the north side are not "metro stops within a Chinatown" at all. Chicago is far from one big Chinatown.The two are many miles apart Similarly your comments do not apply to the old and new Chinatown in Houston. For that matter, they also do not apply to one in DC and one outside DC, but I am not averse to removing that disambiguation page since they are in different cities. Edison (talk) 21:24, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. In the Chicago case, Chinatown Square and Cermak–Chinatown (CTA station) are not ambiguous and for that matter, neither is "New Chinatown" in West Argyle Street Historic District. The old and new chinatowns can be cross-referenced. The same approach applies to Houston and DC. older ≠ wiser 02:49, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Washington, D.C. I'm not familiar with the other cities, but in Washington there is definitely only one Chinatown. Rockville is not Washington, and I would be utterly amazed if one could find any WP:RS that refers to any portion of Rockville as "Chinatown, Washington, D.C." --R'n'B (call me Russ) 14:32, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 15:04, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

QTest

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

Recently recreated article about a non-notable product. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:03, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 17:45, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The "Software Testing Help" review does not strike me as sufficient to demonstrate notability, nor am I finding anything better for this particular qTest. I also note that there are articles for the related qTrace and qTest eXplorer (upgraded names for a product). AllyD (talk) 17:51, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Should not Delete: The wiki page of qTest only shows it's history and development path for those who wonder what qTest is. No attempt to advertise. Also, if anyone feels like "Software Testing Help" isn't a reliable source I included another product review from SOA Magazine by another different author. Tea Nguyen (talk) 21:58, 13 February 2014 (ETC)

Showing the history and development of the product can be done at the company site: www.qasymphony.com. Wikipedia is not a website for you to publicize products, it's for describing notable ones. Without reliable sources, which was the problem the last time you created the article and it was deleted, it doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Considering that all you have done on Wikipedia is work on this company's products, I must assume you are somehow associated with the company and that makes you a single-purpose acocunt. I suspect that we may need to invoke WP:SALT as well. For the record, SOA World Magazine isn't a reliable source. It appears that anyone can sign-up and can write an article. http://www.ulitzer.com/authors?page=1 lists the information on the author of the newly added review. There does not appear to be an editorial board or editor in chief. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:15, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. The DeveloperIQ ref may be reliable, but the other sources are not, as pointed out above, and on its own the one source is not sufficient to establish notability. A search did not turn up any additional RS coverage. Dialectric (talk) 02:43, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sourcing has been provided, and sources do not need to be in English to count. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:19, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pititsa hill climb

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

Local sports event, does not meet WP:SPORTSEVENT, very limited news coverage (the only ones found by another editor were both in Greek). Markussep ^Talk 15:05, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per WP:NOTENG, unless someone shows me that those sources are unreliable. There are several other things out there in Greek as well, that verifiably aren't from forum posts, but they can be hard to find given the different character set. It is also not strictly a local sports event when it is part of a national championship (although I'm aware that this isn't necessarily enough to qualify for SPORTSEVENT on its own) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:52, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-This AFD smacks of American-centric, only what happens in USA matters thinking. Some cite tags would be a nice start, and a request for development. There's not enough info here to know whether this is notable or not. How about give it a chance for development? Paavo273 (talk) 00:14, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Paavo, can you stop making that remark on every AfD I see you on? As it stands, nothing in your vote is policy-based, and it's just an attack on the nominator. Calm down a bit, OK? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:50, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I'm not American, I've never even been in the USA. I started this Afd because this article was written by banned user:Pumpie, who wrote thousands of articles with unsourced and unverifiable content, mainly about niche subjects. I'm not contesting that this event exists, but I have serious questions about its importance. European championship races are not held there, and they weren't in the past. Please read WP:SPORTSEVENT, I don't think this race meets any of the criteria given there. Markussep ^Talk 12:39, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I may have to take a look through anything left behind by that user, look into the backstory of that user a bit, and see if there are any major problems in their remaining articles. I'd happily improve this one, but I don't trust Google Translate enough to use it for anything other than French, Italian and Spanish sources (ie, those languages that I have at least a modicum a knowledge of) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:41, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete as unreferenced and failing WP:GNG. Note that the Greek Wikipedia article it is citing is also unreferenced. Also considering this page (and its Greek counterpart) were both created in 2007 it has had more than ample time for development. It is the responsibility of the article/creator to demonstrate notability, not for us to assume there may be some and let an unreferenced, likely non-notable page exist indefinitely. Ravendrop 09:56, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ravendrop, your vote is utterly against policy. What is going on on the Greek Wikipedia is irrelevant (this page is just a translation). The fact it was created in 2007 and was mostly ignored is irrelevant. It is not the responsibility of the article creator to demonstrate notability per-se, just that someone has to. I've provided sources here, which may well satisfy GNG; you appear to have ignored that completely. Particularly as the article is now not unreferenced, so your vote is invalid. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:34, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it's debatable whether the websites Lukeno94 found and added to the article count as reliable sources. http://www.rally.gr is apparently a website that is related to automobile magazine "4 Trochoi", http://www.6thgear.gr appears to be an on-line automobile magazine. So they may count as reliable sources, but I wouldn't call it "front page coverage outside of the local areas involved". They're not national newspapers, and I don't think you'll find coverage in Ta Nea or Kathimerini, to name a few. Quoting from WP:SPORTSEVENT: "A game that is widely considered by independent reliable sources to be notable, outside routine coverage of each game, especially if the game received front page coverage outside of the local areas involved (...) Articles about notable games should have well-sourced prose, not merely a list of stats. Regular season games in professional and college leagues are not inherently notable." "Routine coverage" is further elaborated here: WP:ROUTINE. A quote: "Per Wikipedia policy, routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article. Planned coverage of pre-scheduled events, especially when those involved in the event are also promoting it, is considered to be routine." See for instance the difference with the Acropolis Rally, which does get international coverage. Markussep ^Talk 11:34, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That comment doesn't even remotely fit with policy either. "front page coverage outside of the local areas involved" has never been a requirement for GNG - the coverage can be right in the middle of a 900 page book and if it is significant, that's all that matters. Nor does something have to be from a newspaper - national-level automobile magazines, as these appear to be, are perfectly acceptable. It doesn't matter what those newspapers you list say, and neither does any coverage that the Acropolis Rally gets (that's a completely different form of motorsport anyway...) The coverage is required to be non-routine and significant in independent reliable sources; as far as I can tell, this is satisfied in the sources I found (routine would just be "X won this event", and wouldn't go into any more depth than that). And that wording of SPORTSEVENT is utterly unhelpful when it comes to this sort of event (which isn't your fault, but). Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:12, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you think the WP:SPORTSEVENT guideline is wrong, maybe you should discuss it there. But for now it's all we have, and it's similar to what is stated at Wikipedia:Notability (events). As far as I understood from the rally.gr article (I don't speak Greek either), it's one of the races of the national (amateur?) championship, organised by a local automobile club. Markussep ^Talk 14:57, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If the article meets GNG, which it appears to do, it doesn't need to meet SPORTSEVENT. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:43, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Declarations of War during World War II. Or List of military engagements of World War II if preferred. Stifle (talk) 16:14, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of all war outbreaks during World War II

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

The article is a redundant content fork of information found at Declarations of War during World War II and List of military engagements of World War II. I took the article through requests for comment and a consensus was reached that the list serves no discernible purpose. The only editor who felt the article could be kept was the original creator. N4 (talk) 15:03, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have copied over the survey section of the request for comment as found on the article's talk page as a full disclosure. N4 (talk) 15:09, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Proposal: This article is redundant, any useful aspects of this article should be merged with pre-existing articles and this page should be nominated for deletion.

Support Wikipedia policy is to improve pre-existing articles rather than create new ones. The information here not available elsewhere seems limited at best and could be easily included in more concise articles. Even if the article was further developed and copyedited, I do not see the advantage to having a non-comprehensive list of individual attacks that lead to or follow from a declaration of war. N4 (talk) 15:29, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - pointless and gratuitous content fork. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:02, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article, that is, 'Support merging. Does not serve an obvious independent purpose. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:10, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm leaning merge as well, but the best article to merge to might be List of military engagements of World War II. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:33, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't necessarily think it was a good idea to move the ongoing RfC to an AfD, especially when a merge consensus appears to be forming, but my first choice is a delete, with second as merge to List of military engagements of World War II. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:15, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge. But I've already attempted merging with Declarations of War during World War II, but it was fruitless. Dates from which a state of war between nations emerges are importaint. To rule out the Soviet Union attacks on Poland and Finland -39 , aswell as the Japanese attack at Pearl Harbour cannot be reguarded as NPOV. Content may be found in the Timeline, but there is an excess of information, for readers that are looking for days/dates when a war began. Hence the need. Boeing720 (talk) 17:13, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After the mayor improvements of Declarations of War during World War II I have now changed my mind. Here I just want to add that when I first attempted to improve that list, encuggaged by user N4, everything soon was reverted. But I do agree that as of now List of all war outbreaks during World War II do no longer serve any purpose that cannot just as easy can be found at previously mentioned list, and hence the list should be erased. Boeing720 (talk) 11:45, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - As a content fork. (Declarations of War during World War II and List of military engagements of World War II are both good suggestions) --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:03, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - useless content fork. Rwenonah (talk) 23:10, 11 February 2014 (UTC)"[reply]
Comment I'm puzzled as to why this was brought here. Both the initial proposal and the subsequent consensus seemed to be to merge, so why not merge it? If there was questioning over the exact merge target, there are procedures to decide that. (See Wikipedia:Merge and delete for why "merge and delete" should usually mean "merge".) --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:49, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I hadn't realized that was how merges worked. I saw that consensus was that the page shouldn't be kept and assumed that the merge takes place within the AfD process. I get the idea (from multiple editors) that I've gone about this the wrong way. Could someone please help me out and let me know what I'm supposed to do with the article and the AfD now? Sorry! N4 (talk) 16:06, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I hesitated over the above because I'm not sure if content was actually merged (i.e., was text actually copied from one page to another?) If nothing was merged, there's no need to preserve the page and it could be deleted; if it was merged, it should be replaced with a redirect. --Colapeninsula (talk) 18:43, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The merge process is nominally handled through WP:PM and uses {{mergeto}} {{mergefrom}} {{merge}} tags. -- 70.24.244.161 (talk) 23:45, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as content fork of Declarations of War during World War II. Carrite (talk) 19:35, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:12, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:12, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge It may be the same information, ut its presented in a much clearer, organised way here IMO. It would be a shame to lose it..--Coin945 (talk) 15:37, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 15:03, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

K Hari Kumar

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

The subject fails WP:NAUTHOR. Has authored few non-notable books. Although he has been covered by few newspapers through interviews, this article from The Hindu describes his likes well as the authors who "push their work through social media and marketing directly". The interviews published are not sufficient enough to pass WP:GNG. An article about his book When Strangers meet is also AfDed by me; both were created by same user. The user has also uploaded images of subject with OTRS permissions present thereby possibly being in close relation to the subject. Pushing their work through social media, aren't they? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 15:02, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 15:02, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 15:02, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've done some dramatic cleaning to the article to remove the blatantly unusable sources and all of the puffery. One thing that concerned me was that some of the claims on the article were very much pulled out of context. For example, the comparisons to other authors wasn't really made in the way that the article claimed they were. The news source was actually about book marketing and the comparison was due to how many fans someone had on facebook- and even then it wasn't entirely a direct comparison. There is quite a bit of coverage here, although I suppose someone could say that it is all from a very short period of time. If it is kept, this will probably need to be watched so it doesn't turn into a puff piece again. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 02:28, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pruning the article. I did start with that but found the whole subject unworthy and decided to AfD it. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 03:51, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes I like to clean the articles up if there are a lot of links that are clearly unusable and there are some links that can show notability. I feel that it gives the article a better chance of survival, even if the chances are fairly slim. I know that a lot of people prefer to leave the articles "in situ" to show that they didn't try to sway things in one direction or another, which is understandable. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:24, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have gone through your justifications as well. The writer is a living person, also closely known to me, who very well deserves a place on wikipedia for his work(s). I request you to lift the temporary ban on the article. Lakshmikm (talk) 16:13, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If not already known please review WP:COI. -- GreenC 04:03, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also have made few corrections to make it simple and as apt as possible. Hoping that you will keep the article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lakshmikm (talk • contribs) 15:57, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Five reliable sources plus one more in the book article (which I recommended merge to the author article). -- GreenC 04:03, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn for personal reasons. I can't work with another editor here. Still believe it's notable however but have no interest in participating. -- GreenC 08:45, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So do you mean one passes GNG with 5-6 reliable sources? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 09:02, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah 5 or 6 reviews is pretty average for passing literature AfDs. -- GreenC 17:37, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Its literature you are talking about. If nothing is written about literature, its a sad irony. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:29, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I do wish that some regulars in book/author-related AfDs could understand the difference between PR blurb, self-publicity etc and significant coverage. I'm seeing it time and again and lessons do not seem to be learned, eg: here and here. - Sitush (talk) 11:17, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PR = Public Relations, meaning the piece was written by a self-interested party. That is a serious charge. Can you please support that with objective evidence? -- GreenC 17:34, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not getting into a semantics battle with you. You know exactly what I mean: this type of situation has been explained to you before &, in my limited experience of situations such as this, you've always been on the wrong side of consensus. - Sitush (talk) 11:52, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No I don't know "exactly what you mean". You called these "PR". When I asked for evidence you back off and start making personal attacks about me "always being on the wrong side of consensus" bringing up old AfDs as if you have some personal grudge you carry around.-- GreenC 17:10, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No grudge on my part. You just seem to have a history of not knowing what you are talking about when it comes to these India-related AfDs and a complete absence of antenna. So be it, and hopefully you'll pick it up in due course. Linking to an example of in-depth discussions of a similar nature is surely relevant to how people might form a decision here: sources, policy and the nature of the Indian publishing/marketing industry were discussed at length. The PR issues are being discussed here also, just not in this little bit of the process (see below) & all I said above was that I'm not getting into an argument with you regarding semantics. So stop with the pontificating about "serious charge" etc, please. I'm not a lawyer but if you want to act like one then feel free to sue me. - Sitush (talk) 00:41, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This personal discussion is taken elsewhere. The discussion about sources has apparently moved to a new section below, I have marked with a section break "Arbitrary break" so the closing admin can follow the discussion there. -- GreenC 07:22, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Sitush. It's also appears to be a promotion piece by somebody closely related to the subject of the article. Salih (talk) 17:20, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please, explain - what "appears"? Please provide supporting objective evidence. Assume I don't believe your opinion, only facts. What are the facts? -- GreenC 17:34, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it appears is not correct. It's actually a fact disclosed by the principle author of the article, Lakshmikm. It's all about marketing and propaganda through social networking and PR releases. See this. Wikipedia should not be a party to their advertisement tactics. Salih (talk) 18:33, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? I have no idea what you are saying. You link to an article and say "see". No idea what you are talking about. Please provide evidence. Spell it out. -- GreenC 19:38, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The linked article says the following: Krishna Kumar of Chennai-based publishing house Westland and Tranquebar Press, says, “Ever since Indian writing caught on in a big way, there have been many who started looking at writing as a profession as opposed to what it was earlier, an art form or a craft.” At the heart of this movement is a small publishing house called Srishti. Srishti’s latest book When Strangers Meet, by 24-year-old K. Hari Kumar, is now on its way to a second impression, according to the author. “They have taken on several writers who may not usually find a break with the big publishers. Once published, the authors push their work through social media and marketing directly. They know their target audience, and they connect with them in a big way through Facebook and Twitter on a daily basis,” Krishna Kumar adds. This really make me suspicious. Salih (talk) 03:49, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What are you suspicious of? The literary world is not so big that people overlap. There is nothing there says these sources are compromised. The author of that piece may know some of the same people but so what, that's how the literary world works. -- GreenC 17:10, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They have taken on several writers who may not usually find a break with the big publishers. Once published, the authors push their work through social media and marketing directly. They know their target audience, and they connect with them in a big way through Facebook and Twitter on a daily basis. This is not the way the mainstream publishing works.. and I am suspicious of these small time authors using the Wikipedia as a social media for the advertisement of their works. This is my feeling, you may think otherwise. Salih (talk) 17:43, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you are saying, but they are talking about using social media which is normal. I speak with authors through social media it's a good way to connect. The sources in the article, The Hindu etc.. are not social media, are not paid to publish book reviews (that I know of), don't take bribes for reviews (that I know of) - and a small-time author with a small-time publisher couldn't afford it anyway. So we have to consider the sources as reliable unless there is evidence to the contrary. -- GreenC 21:57, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

C)

It's not actually The Hindu. It is the Metroplus, published by the same group. The Metroplus has been determined on past occasions not to be a reliable source - I vaguely recall SpacemanSpiff (talk · contribs) being particularly excoriating about its practices and influence etc (Spiffy is not active at the moment; I'll have to see if I can find the diff but it certainly was in relation to another arts article). Metroplus is mostly planted features. - Sitush (talk) 00:47, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

... and of those Metroplus citations, this one has but a single sentence about the guy in an article concerned with the Indian publishing industry. It seems to be used only to verify that he is a debut novelist. The other one makes the completely unsurprising statement that 4000 copies were made for the first impression & notes (as does the above link) that it is now on its second impression. I don't mean to denigrate the guy but 4000 copies when the population of India is > 1 billion? I know that there are multiple languages and that literacy rates are sub-par outside of urban areas but, well, it seems like his publishers weren't too convinced themselves. And that raises an interesting point because the news article also says "Other readers however, have pointed out the spelling and grammatical errors in the book", while the first article noted "With a lot of small-time publishers there is also a self-publishing package where the writer pays the publisher to bring the book out. That could also explain why many of the books in this genre aren’t proofread and have woeful grammar and poorly constructed sentences." Still more, the second article says that the publisher doesn't even usually print this genre: it looks more and more likely that the guy is trying to make a name for himself and finally found a way to do it.

I'm also intrigued that the Mathrubhumi source is a blurb for "Youth of the Month". Mathrubhumi publishes a respected weekly literary magazine but, no, this guy features as "youth of the month" in the general features publication. - Sitush (talk) 01:47, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also just few lines above the creator says "The writer is a living person, also closely known to me, who very well deserves a place on wikipedia for his work(s)". All edits of the user since Oct 2013 are related to the subject. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:26, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah as if we've never seen that before.. this is typical for Wikipedia and that someone mentions they know an author doesn't change the fact there are multiple reliable sources that cover the subject in depth. -- GreenC 17:10, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

=== -->

It is not "typical for Wikipedia" at all. I'd query the "in depth" claim for the coverage. Look, if the guy ends up writing a couple of bestsellers and/or gets a movie deal or something then you'll see in-depth coverage. Until then, you'll see PR just as at the examples I linked above. Being mentioned in a newspaper is not in itself a claim to notability: there has to be substance to it and - importantly - there has to be independence. You probably are still not familiar with the way that the Indian media operates but I can assure you that this stuff is not independent but instead manufactured. You've got at least two other people here saying more or less the same thing and all three of us have considerable experience in evaluating those sources. - Sitush (talk) 00:34, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding independence, RegentsPark (also not currently active) made a telling comment in an AfD of a similar nature that I linked above. I accept in advance any "other stuff (doesn't) exist" point but the comment is of a general nature and chimes well with our sources in this article at present: they're mostly interviews & they actually go out of their way to point out that the guy is working hard on his self-publicity. That authors will conduct interviews when trying to promote their latest book is not an issue per se (it is the way of the world) but, as RP said, mere coverage in newspapers through interviews is not significant stuff. It really is quite easy to get that sort of mention because it is cheap copy, and it is almost without exception taken in a fawning manner by Indian media. - Sitush (talk) 02:09, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"if this guy writes best sellers.." There is no consensus that best-seller status denotes notability. Small run books can be notable, large run best-seller books may not be notable. Otherwise every book on best seller lists would have an article and we don't do that. There are many previous consensus discussions on best sellers and notability.
"coverage in newspapers through interviews is not significant.." I agree that interviews given during book promotions are not independent. However a full-length interview is not the same as being quoted by a journalist in an article or a book review. The later have significant editorial content which is outside the control of the subject of the article. The journalist may write a fawning article, or they may write a negative one. We don't cherry pick sources based on their attitude towards the subject.

The sources we have are full blown journalism pieces under the editorial control of the journalist and not K Hari Kumar. They are reliable sources. No evidence has been shown that these are promotional or otherwise dependent pieces. -- GreenC 07:22, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Any chance that you can stop being so pedantic in your reading of what I write? Like I said, I'm no lawyer & I don't write like one. My "if he writes" comment was evidently a broad-brush approach to the issue & I wasn't saying that would itself create notability but that it would give rise to in-depth coverage. If you think that the sources provided are "full blown journalism" then you're way off-course: they are clearly based on material supplied by the author and designed for promotion, as they were in the previously-linked AfDs.

And I object to your arbitrary break because it might just cause a reviewing admin to miss some important analysis regarding the sources, including that provided by Salih and Dharmadyaksha and thus not just mine. I've commented it out that break because "The discussion about sources has apparently moved to a new section below," was clearly misplaced. - Sitush (talk) 07:39, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability not found. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:15, 22 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete, would not appear to meet WP:AUTHOR, not overly impressed by the quality of the sourcing. If and when Kumar truly meets the notability guidelines, we won't need to split hairs over whether appearing in borderline sources, because they'll be plenty of coverage in high-quality sources. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:17, 22 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:18, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Buddy Roberts (fighter)

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

Non-notable MMA fighter - not likely to meet 3 top tier fights. Peter Rehse (talk) 14:58, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 14:58, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He doesn't meet WP:NMMA and since he hasn't fought since 2012, he seems unlikely to get the top tier fight he needs. Papaursa (talk) 00:10, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — It's very likely that he will fight again for the UFC, as he is still in the UFC roster and just didn't fought in January due to an illness. Poison Whiskey 01:19, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That was January 2013 not 2014. Of course if he gets a third fight, he's notable, but that seems unlikely right now. Papaursa (talk) 05:01, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well said, i missed that. Anyway, i'll keep an eye on the news about him. It isn't that rare for a fighter to stay inactive for some years (examples: Dominick Cruz, Thiago Alves, Amir Sadollah and Claude Patrick, all of them still in the UFC roster). Poison Whiskey 22:20, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No activity since 2012 and shy of WP:NMMA. I think there are too many unknowns to hold off under "likely" assumptions. Would be willing to considering re-creation/restore if another UFC fight is scheduled. Mkdw ^talk 07:09, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet the applicable notability requirements.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:28, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete !votes. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:35, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

José Lorenzo Cossío y Cosío

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

Source searches in Gbooks and News are not revealing significant coverage in reliable sources about this subject. The subject appears to not meet WP:BASIC. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:51, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Extra sources added. Mexican judge, has a Museum Library named after him and an entry in Who's Notable in Mexico! Philafrenzy (talk) 15:08, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looks fine to me. My Spanish is rather rusty, but I'd say if he was British or American there would be no question about him being notable. Edwardx (talk) 15:40, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:15, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:16, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, nice referencing on this deceased historical figure. — Cirt (talk) 05:57, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - per improvements in sourcing (within the article) that demonstrate the subject's notability, I withdraw this nomination. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:35, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 15:04, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When Strangers meet

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

The book fails WP:NBOOK criteria in all aspects and also doesn't pass WP:GNG. It has received reviews in newspapers but not plenty enough to pass GNG. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 14:50, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 14:51, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 14:52, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm cleaning the article and well... I have to say that some of the claims in the article are inaccurate. The claims of the Hindu comparing him to various authors is incorrect. The article is actually about book marketing in general and the only way he's really compared is in how many Facebook fans various authors have- and it's not exactly a direct comparison either. I'll look through the other sources, but offhand I'm very concerned about the misinterpretation/misrepresentation of sources. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 01:58, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/redirect to K Hari Kumar. Now assuming that the author's article is kept, I'd say that this should redirect to his article. There is coverage, but the coverage is mostly about the author as a whole in relation to the book so I think we can probably merit an article for one, but not both. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 02:11, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Agree with Tokyogirl79 -Rayabhari (talk) 14:40, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to K Hari Kumar (which I recommended to Keep). -- GreenC 04:04, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdrawn for personal reasons. I know it will close Delete anyway. This is due to an editor whose involvement here I won't work with and for my own peace of mind. -- GreenC 08:56, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No support for notability. I'd support a merge to the author's article but I'd be astonished if that too is not deleted. Promo/puff pieces, both. - Sitush (talk) 02:38, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:15, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aspen Creek (restaurant)

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

Not notable. Some shallow coverage but no depth. A lot of the sources seem to be dead. Philafrenzy (talk) 13:20, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:GNG. ~~WP:CORPDEPTH~~

Nation's Restaurant News (subscription required)
Nation's Restaurant News (subscription required)
Courier-Journal
WDRB News
Star-Telegram
Dallas Morning News (short article)

– Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:08, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, enough coverage of this small chain concept to pass GNG [25] [26] [27] but I suggest a merge and redirect to Texas Roadhouse, its more obviously notable parent, especially since Texas Roadhouse has already turned one of its Aspen Creek restaurants (in Fayetteville, NC) into yet another new concept called Bubba's 33 [28][29] . --Arxiloxos (talk) 14:19, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as Arxiloxos has suggested. The TR article is not very long and can handle a section on this name w/o annoying readers of TR. Paavo273 (talk) 00:21, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This AfD was posted 39 minutes and 10 seconds after the PROD was removed. There is no discussion on the talk page. Unscintillating (talk) 20:01, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Category:All articles to be merged currently shows the backlog at 11,429. The process for proposing mergers is at WP:PM. Unscintillating (talk) 20:01, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Deadlinks can be marked by the nominator while preparing the community for a deletion discussion. Deadlinks can be WP:RS, just harder to locate. Unscintillating (talk) 20:01, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nominator was notified in the removal of the PROD that, "appears to meet WP:CORPDEPTH, per source searches". Unscintillating (talk) 20:01, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH because the sources are routine announcements and reviews which are specifically excluded in that policy. Philafrenzy (talk) 20:30, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Stifle (talk) 15:15, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Standing Sushi Bar

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

Not notable. Has plenty of shallow, trivial, coverage but nothing of any depth. Philafrenzy (talk) 13:15, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Comment - Initial source searches indicate that the topic meets WP:CORPDEPTH:

– Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:50, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The TechCrunch article is OK, but the other two are trivial. WP:CORPDEPTH says that the depth of coverage must be considered and "acceptable sources under this criterion include all types of reliable sources except works carrying merely trivial coverage, such as ... routine restaurant reviews...". Philafrenzy (talk) 18:52, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Initial English-language source searches are somewhat thin, but it's likely that more are available from Japanese, Singaporean and Indonesian sources. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:10, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Everyone, including me, should read these sources more closely. Just noticed that the TechCrunch article is a 1 April spoof! This leaves this article with nothing but routine reviews. Philafrenzy (talk) 19:24, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like I may have to eat crow on the first source in my !vote above. I overlooked the short note at the end of the article that states, "PS: It’s April 1, guys." Regardless, sources may exist in other-than-English-language sources. Also, topic notability is never based upon the sourcing within articles themselves, it's based upon the availability of sources (see WP:NRVE). Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:32, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Such sources need to be "recognized peer reviewed publications, credible and authoritative books, reputable media sources" etc. Is that likely for a small chain of sushi bars with three outlets? Have you given any thought to what exactly you are trying to preserve? Philafrenzy (talk) 19:42, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I won't address the sarcasm of the comment "Have you given any thought to what exactly you are trying to preserve?". This doesn't improve the encyclopedia, and is also negative in tone and nature. Perhaps consider searching for sources, rather than simply judging the ones that others provide. Also, some restaurants are quite notable and only have one location, so the notion of "only three outlets" has nothing to do with encyclopedic notability on Wikipedia, and is subjective. Happy editing, Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:04, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't intended as sarcasm. It was a serious question. This is a small chain of sushi bars with no distinctive features at all as far as I can see. I am genuinely puzzled as to why you feel they warrant an article just because they managed to get a few reviews of the type they all have. (that isn't sarcasm either!) Philafrenzy (talk) 20:11, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be puzzled. Conversely, I can then ask, 'Have you given any thought to why exactly you're so adamant about this one article being deleted from public view?' Also, I consider the sentiment, "This is a small chain of sushi bars with no distinctive features" to be entirely subjective, lacking any basis upon Wikipedia's guidelines or policies. Articles are not deleted from public view based upon this type of subjective criteria itself. Also, it's important to be cognizant of the potential for Wikipedia:Systemic bias to occur in the encyclopedia, due to a lack of Western coverage about Asian topics that sometimes occurs. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:20, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well write or edit an article on an Asian topic that actually matters then. (I know you did not create this article) There are enough missing. I will support that 100%, but this particular one simply isn't notable. I wouldn't expect to see an article on a three outlet chain of English restaurants where I live if there was nothing notable about them. You will notice I frequently create articles about Africa, Asia and South America. Incidentally, worries about systemic bias didn't stop you nominating José Lorenzo Cossío y Cosío for deletion! Philafrenzy (talk) 20:30, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is too subjective for me, per WP:JUSTNOTNOTABLE. However, have fun. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:54, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will do, see you around. Philafrenzy (talk) 21:00, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's important to remain on-topic about Standing Sushi Bar here, rather than other matters. Happy editing, Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:02, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Here's two more reliable sources, both of which provide significant coverage:

Yu, Eileen (July 1, 2013). "Singapore SMB rides out 'do-or-die' moment with tech". Zdnet. Retrieved 14 February 2014.
(in Indonesian) Santap Sushi Sambil Berdiri. Tribune News. November 4, 2012.

– These, combined with the following sources...

– qualify the topic's notability as meeting WP:CORPDEPTH. Again, it's likely that additional non-English/Indonesian/Singaporean sources are available. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:26, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Coverage is more than just run-of-the-mill reviews. Candleabracadabra (talk) 00:12, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Multiple coverage in independent, reliable sources. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:13, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 15:04, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

United Registrar of Systems

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

I proposed this for speedy deletion, which was declined.

In my opinion, the company (URS) doesn't meet the requirements at WP:CORP for notability and its only claims are that it is global, is accredited, it has 2000 employees and it has notable clients (which the original submitter hasn't verified.) I confirmed the accreditation on the UKAS website — UKAS is an official British body — but accreditiation isn't sufficient to make it notable for an encyclopedia. I can't find references that would verify notability, though perhaps someone with better search skills can. Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 11:57, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Follow up

Google Books sometimes doesn't show me relevant pages, but after a second try, I found this book written by a Commercial Manager of the subject, published by a reputable publisher.

ISO 9001:2000 Quality Registration Step-by-Step, 3rd edition, 2004, By Fred Dobb ISBN 1136009779

I am not sure if that confers notability or not. (The other references on the first page of Google Books search seem to be mere passing mentions.)

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 12:08, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:59, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. as nom says, it doesn't pass WP:CORP, also no refs, i googled to see what is there and nothing springs off the page. Szzuk (talk) 20:29, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 14:57, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Total Mortgage Services

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

Not notable mortgage servicing company. Note that, in the exhaustive list of references, those that say "yahoo.com" and "San Francisco Chronicle" actually just go to the disclosure archives of those outlets where they catalog company-issued press releases. The only secondary RS in the entire article is a brief mention of it as a "Best Place to Work" by the Hartford Current. Even the trade pubs are simply unedited copy in press release sections of those outlets, not actual articles. The article's creator has been busy on a wide variety of sites, though mostly just to salt them with links to Total Mortgage Services in the "Further reading" sections. BlueSalix (talk) 07:49, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE: In addition to the above, the primary contributor was the company's web developer^[2], and most likely wrote the article to increase his company's visibility. WP:NOTADVERTISING .אבי נ (talk) 10:51, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:43, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:09, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Womens education on development

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

I can't find any evidence outside Wikipedia for this under its title or as Shikshaasthvavakaasha. It would help if it could be translated, but I can't even establish the language. Dubious notability as it stands Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:09, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails GNG BlueSalix (talk) 07:50, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It could be transliterated Hindi or Sanskrit. I've found a few words that come up in Hindi-related sources when I Google them, in particular the word "naariiNaam", which led me to http://www.translatesanskrit.net/en/dictionary-sanskrit-english/naariiNaaM, which has the same upper-case N—as well as M, and which means, fittingly, "of women". —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:05, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:42, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Have failed to find the original language, so unless someone who knows it happens to come forward... Besides, it is still unsourced, so it could well be pointless anyway. BethNaught (talk) 17:35, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT. It would require translation, sourcing, and complete re-writing; it would also need to be moved from its current Hinglish title. Bearian (talk) 18:35, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for goodness sake. At best this will turn out to be student essay. I note that the creator's only presence on other wikis is on sa:, the Sanskrit wiki. So this may be Sanskrit transliterated into roman characters. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:49, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 15:05, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Capstone Partners

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

Nonnotable investment bank. - Altenmann >t —Preceding undated comment added 04:14, 4 February 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable per WP:CORPDEPTH. Source examples include:

Insurance Journal
Boston Business Journal
Philly.com
Mergers and Acquisitions Report (subscription required)
Boston Business Journal
Boston Business Journal

– Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:18, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:12, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - well-known in the investments industry. Bearian (talk) 18:37, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 15:05, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sexual economy

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

Poorly written opinion piece of no value to anyone. Tiggum (talk) 05:21, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or merge It looks to me that the best action is to merge or redirect this article with Sex industry because both articles address simary things.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 13:46, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:09, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, possibly redirect the title but the content is too POV for a merge. Reads like an angry blog post. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:11, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: this topic appears to be significantly covered based on the sources provided. It does seem to be a bit POV but Wikipedia does include articles about particular points of view if it can be done neutrally, which I think it can here. I don't think Sex industry is a valid merge target either - this article is about a theory comparing sexual interactions between men and women to economic concepts, whereas the sex industry is a particular set of occupations and products. They're probably related but not the same thing. Social exchange theory would be a better target if we're going to do a merge, but I think we could make this a decent article on its own. Ivanvector (talk) 18:22, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- If there's an article possible on this topic (and I'm not convinced), it will need to be totally rewritten, as the present content is completely unacceptable for Wikipedia, with really out-there statements like "Even though women wished for sexual freedom, their ultimate goal is to get married in the future." I'm actually amazed the article has lasted this long. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:45, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Original essay. Carrite (talk) 06:20, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 20:16, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Amit Shekhar

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

Claims are all of trivial works related to films, like working in digital promotion and such. Some work as writer and/or asst. director seem very trivial (if at all are proven true through WP:RS). References are from IMDb (non-RS) and self-published sources like facebook. Many other sources don't even support the claims made. The creator is also possibly the subject himself. (Geez! Working in digital promotion; so what more should we expect.) §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:26, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable; references aren't valid; most credits are insignificant. (Digital promotion? Really?) JSFarman (talk) 23:09, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:28, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this article. I have removed the trivial information like digital promotion as per Wiki Editors and putting more references for validity. This articles needs a space on Wikipedia . we will put some more strong references regarding this new article. Thank you so much Wiki Editors for their Valuable suggestions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vishwadurga (talk • contribs) 10:55, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the objection is not that he is doing digital promotion but that he isn't doing anything worth noting about it. (Btw, what is this "digital promotion"? Tweet and tag and blog and spam everywhere, is it?) Please read WP:GNG to see what "notability" is needed about a person to have a Wikipedia article. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 16:19, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete trivial coverage only. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 12:50, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete sources are not reliable at all. LibStar (talk) 11:04, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject is not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:53, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails notability. — Wylie pedia 15:53, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:32, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adem Grabovci

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

Negative BLP, with the essential attacking part unsourced. The Banner talk 11:07, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is not a negative BLP, it is a biograpgy of an important politician - with several noteworthy details such as being a founding member of the Kosovo Liberation Army, serving as a political prisoner for 6 years, and currently being a member of parliament for Kosovo. If there are unsourced details in the article, they can just be removed - the reason for nomination is not valid. John Cengiz talk 20:26, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Except for the first sentence, everything is unsourced... The Banner talk 21:43, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He's an MP in his country's parliament for Pete's sake! and deserves just as much coverage as any two-bit politician from Germany or USA, or Ireland. I'll add a banner cite tag when I do a little mechanical fixing. Give the article a chance at least. Paavo273 (talk) 00:26, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All what is written in the article (current state) appears in the webpage of Assembly of Kosovo (listed as reference). For sure the article needs improvement, but I don't see any reason to be completely deleted. Mondiad (talk) 01:17, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:BEFORE. Clearly meets WP:POLITICIAN. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:31, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- It should have been nice when you looked a bit further before you waived your classic WP:BEFORE. This] was there WP:BEFORE. The Banner talk 11:53, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I did. You could have removed it yourself instead of nominating for deletion. That's not improving Wikipedia. It's a misunderstanding of what AfD is for. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:57, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:31, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:31, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Elected MP passes notability. Flaming Ferrari (talk) 20:00, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable per WP:POLITICIAN (as referenced by Necrothesp) and almost all statements seem to actually be referenced in the official bio. Can you please tell me exactly what about the article is a negative (I don't see anything that looks like an attack, but I could very easily be missing something) or unsourced statement?Cogito-Ergo-Sum (14) (talk) 23:43, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe there was some negative material when the article was nominated, but this has since been removed. Unsourced negative material is a reason for editing, not deletion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:13, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then edit, my friend, don't start shouting from the sideline. The Banner talk 11:55, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - It had already been removed when I added my comment above! And this is a bit rich coming from someone who nominated an article for deletion without bothering to check for notability first and who could instead merely have removed the offending section. Oh no, instead you just blanked the page and requested speedy deletion, despite the subject clearly being notable. AfD is for deletion on the grounds of insufficient notability. Since he clearly is notable under our guidelines, I fail to see why you nominated for deletion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:57, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:14, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ardle

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

I can find no evidence that Ardle, as a place as opposed to a river, exists or has existed. The coords in the article, on OS map, lead to the River Ardle but no village. http://www.visionofbritain.org.uk/place/26856 describes a river only. It is not listed in the "Towns and villages" section of Perth and Kinross, nor in List of places in Perth and Kinross; it has been included in {{Perth and Kinross towns and villages}} since its creation in October 2010, but templates don't show sources. PamD 08:59, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find any evidence of such a place. There's an Ardlebank, but that just looks like a farm, not a village. --Deskford (talk) 13:16, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - ditto. Perhaps this is not entirely relevant but the article creator's talk page is largely a list of Prod and AfD notices, commencing thus. Ben Mac Dui 19:22, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:34, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - OS 1:25 000 shows Ardlebank (a farm perhaps?) and River Ardle (and Strathardle as the valley). But no village called Ardle. Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:58, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:34, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Atlantic Cup (football)

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

Non-notable friendly football tournament, failing WP:GNG. Whilst there is coverage of the tournament in independent WP:RS, it is pretty much all routine match reports, or in local sources. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:30, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is an annual event in its fourth year, televised on EuroSport, and there is coverage in news reports in addition to the televising, which itself is coverage. This AFD is apparently a follow-on to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Atlantic Cup 2013 (football), where i agree that splitting out separate years is not ncessary, but a main article on the event should be kept (so i !voted "Merge"). --do ncr am 17:45, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Being televised on EuroSport, who often televise fairly minor events, is not an indication of notability, and nor is any news coverage by EuroSport (which would be a primary source, given that they hold the TV rights). Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:36, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Appears to be a notable annual event with sources cited. Effort to delete smacks of Anglo-centric, American-centric view of the world and WP. (Just to be clear, I'm not from that part of the world, and even hate soccer/"association" football. Paavo273 (talk) 00:35, 13 February 2014 (UTC))[reply]
- That is a ridiculous accusation based on nothing whatsoever. You might as well say that the nominator is a radical feminist since most of the humans on those teams are of the male persuasion. Drmies (talk) 01:07, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anglo-centric is something you could potentially levy at me, but any attempt at looking at who I am would reveal that "American-centric" is clearly not going to apply. Equally, I would nominate any friendly tournament that appears to fail GNG, regardless of nationality, so in reality, your accusations are just hot air... Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:49, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Lukeno94: You're right. My bad, esp. rel the Ami-centric. I'm gonna' stick with the keep vote though based on my first sentence. Please see my remarks @ your talk page.Paavo273 (talk) 18:22, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - The competition doesn't appear to get much coverage in English language sources (if any), but it gets just enough in foreign sources to convince me that it's notable enough to have an article. The individual iterations of this competition, however, are not sufficiently notable. – Pee Jay 01:02, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the tournament as a whole seems to get enough coverage to be considered notable; the individual years do not. Giant Snowman 18:24, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:13, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GayPark

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

Non-notable mobile application. The article's only sources are application links, the application itself has not received any coverage (a search of Google News returns no results). Also noteworthy is the similarity between the account that created this iteration, and the account that created the previous iteration of the article, prior to its deletion: User:GP.Jimmy and User:GayPark.Jimmy; the connection between these accounts, as pointed out here by @NatGertler:, seems to involve COI and promotional intent. gsk 08:28, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence (or credible assertion of) notability, and pushing the edge of G11 to boot. Pinkbeast (talk) 09:15, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - awaiting the page creators response for request for reliable sources. Looking at similar products to this one it's pretty much what I expect. It may be too soon for an article until more reviews are in. Sportfan5000 (talk) 09:20, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I failed to find coverage of this, so this is a product not yet ready for an article. Clarification - by pointing out the existence of the two user accounts, I was not intending to suggest that there was any improper use of two accounts, no WP:SOCKing or such. Assuming they are the same user, there was understandable reason for generating a new account name, as the user had received not-entirely-correct criticism for his previous name as being promotional. I pointed it out merely to show that the article had a history (with apparently the same creator) beyond what is in the current history file (as visible to us non-admins). --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:37, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Software article of unclear notability. Current refs do not constitute significant coverage in reliable sources, as they are commercial/download links. A search revealed no significant RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 13:45, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 06:40, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Winnit Club

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

A support clib for users of a single tourist island DGG ( talk ) 08:05, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 00:37, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete almost all sources provided are primary. even trove has routine coverage like donations made. totally non notable outside of Rottnest Island. LibStar (talk) 00:56, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to keep in light of sourcing from independent sources. LibStar (talk) 02:15, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article came through AfC. Nominator has not cited a policy, guideline, or essay opposed to clibs or clubs on Wikipedia. I found on Trove a 1954 WP:RS newspaper column that identifies the club as "well-known", and notability is not temporary. I also found using Trove that the 2.3 million citizens of Western Australia have been using their tax dollars to support the work of this club. I've added four references I found on Trove to the "Further reading" section of the article. I also added Category:Rottnest Island, in which this article is a good addition. Unscintillating (talk) 22:41, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

" 2.3 million citizens of Western Australia have been using their tax dollars to support the work of this club" is not a criterion for notability. does not mean 2.3 million reasons to support notability. taxpayers dollars are used for 1000s of items a year. LibStar (talk) 23:05, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As per the nutshell of WP:N, "notable topics" are "those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, and are not outside the scope of Wikipedia. We consider evidence from reliable independent sources to gauge this attention." Unscintillating (talk) 14:48, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

that's a vague response to my point. You have provided other good reasons for keep but I think your point on 2.3 million is irrelevant. LibStar (talk) 14:59, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have quoted from WP:N, which says that notable topics are those that have attracted sufficiently significant attention from the world at large over a period of time. Your claim is that the attention this topic has attracted does not extend beyond the 300 permanent residents of Rottnest Island. Unscintillating (talk) 23:30, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So someone in Karratha really is interested in rottnest island? LibStar (talk) 00:15, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well beyond Karratha http://www.abc.net.au/news/search/?query=rottnest&x=0&y=0 WP:AGF prevents any further comment re Libstars behaviour in Afds for the last 5 years plus but this interaction is really unnecessary for this Afd. satusuro 00:55, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

that search doesn't establish that 2.3 million Western Australans are interested in Rottnest Island. same thing that the Rudd Government Nation building program used taxpayers money to upgrade every school in Australia, that does not mean a taxpayer in Karratha personally cared about an individual school upgrade in Perth. LibStar (talk) 02:13, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2.3 million is an over reach as thats total population, Gnan garra 03:38, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The actual statement was, "I also found using Trove that the 2.3 million citizens of Western Australia have been using their tax dollars to support the work of this club." I have posted two references in the article to support this statement. Are you saying that a verifiable statement is an overreach? Unscintillating (talk) 07:04, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

do children and pensioners pay tax in Western Australia? LibStar (talk) 07:48, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So do you admit that the 2.3 million is an exaggeration of actual taxpayers in Western Australia? LibStar (talk) 07:59, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have examined your request and I'm not finding it to have merit. The original post makes no reference to "taxpayers". The reference to tax is "their tax dollars", where the antecedent to "their" is the "citizens of Western Australia". As per the article, there are 2.3 million citizens of Western Australia. The request comes across to me as having the form of a strawman, where a strawman is an informal logical fallacy "premised on a distortion of the other party's position". In this type of situation the "...reasoning is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position does not address the actual position." Unscintillating (talk) 05:48, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have also examined the timing of the post that made this request.

*2014-02-18T07:57:24

*2014-02-18T07:59:32 the edit to which I am responding

*2014-02-18T07:59:57

It shows that I have responded to an edit that took perhaps 2 minutes and 8 seconds to prepare and post. Unscintillating (talk) 05:48, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep created by new user through the WP:AFC processes[30] one doesnt need to WP:AGF on notability its already jump through those hoops. If one happened to miss the reference section it was the primary subject of a book in 1971[31], its apparently been the source and driving force behind significant projects, many notable in their right on the Island. Gnan garra 01:32, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - (not a clib for a start) notable process occurring on a notable island that has a lot more to it than 'single tourist island' - the island and component contributing factors of its history and environment are not even adequately covered at this stage. satusuro 02:03, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

should you not assume good faith and note it was a typo by DGG? LibStar (talk) 02:10, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good faith is not the issue with DGG. Unscintillating (talk) 07:04, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - nominator has not identified a valid reason for deleting. A support group for a tourist island is not presumed to be lacking in notability. Bahnfrend (talk) 08:55, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:12, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stallo: Curse of the Shaman

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

Does not meet WP:NOTFILM. Other than an IMDB entry and one press release (in Norwegian) announced during post-production, there is no media coverage of the film. —Josh3580_talk/hist 07:17, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There just doesn't seem to be anything out there. I have no problem with its recreation when/if it gets more coverage, though. Since I have a feeling that the original editor is likely one of the people involved with the film, I'd give this recommendation: sending information to the big horror sites (HorrorNews.net, Fearnet, Bloody Disgusting, Shock Till You Drop, Ain't it Cool News, and the like) would help towards coverage in the long run. It wouldn't give it notability here and now necessarily, but it'd help get word out and gain more coverage over time. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:39, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ultra-low-budget movie that hasn't been released and may not be. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:56, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and the above postings, with recreation if/when movie is released and meets WP:NOTFILM

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article does include an independent press article about the film, and I found another, and added information from both. (I was searching in Norwegian, and sources being in languages other than English is not a problem.) But this does not add up to sufficient coverage to satisfy the general notability guideline, let alone the notability guideline for films, and the Norwegian Wikipedia article, to which I have linked ours, is minimal and unreferenced, so no help there. Too soon, I'm afraid. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:37, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Thirty_Seconds_to_Mars_discography. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:07, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AOL Sessions Undercover

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

non-notable EP. Does not meet. WP:NALBUM. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:53, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or redirect to Thirty Seconds to Mars discography. I'm not sure if it can be neatly merged into the discography. I'm surer that there's not enough coverage for this to be independently notable. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:41, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Thirty Seconds to Mars discography. Cites demonstrate only that it exists, not that it is notable. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 16:48, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 18:58, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mars One (U.S.)

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

A list of candidates at this early stage of the programme is simply not notable. Mars One is nowhere near ready to fly - if it ever does - and this is not the final list of people who will fly on it just people who have got to the next stage of the application process. W. D. Graham 06:50, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This isn't encyclopedic content. It's a potentially very long list of non-notable people with no analysis or other value. Even if the people are mentioned in the news, and some of them (mainly the young and pretty) have detailed coverage in their local area press, it's just a story of the day/week. If some get long-term coverage of their applications, when the numbers are whittled down, we can reconsider and start covering the more notable people. But right now they're just wannabe reality show contestants. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:36, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-encyclopedic and does not meet general notability criteria. At most, a summary of how many candidates are from the US might be mentioned in the main Mars One article. These folks are not separately notable, nor is a list of them notable. N2e (talk) 17:16, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the reasons mentioned above. Wild8oar (talk) 17:28, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Mars One. Nothing on this page is notable on its own. Redirect per WP:CHEAP and to preserve AfD result so that future editors don't recreate. Ivanvector (talk) 18:27, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article content is not about any notable people. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, not a self-popularization platform. There are around 300 applicants from the US selected for Round 2 of Mars One. All of them obviously can not, and should not, be listed in an encyclopedia, just for this achievement. Rounds 3 and 4 are still left. The final 40 or so candidates selected (from all over the world) at the end of Round 4, should be listed. And that information will be available in 2015 or later.--Sarthak Sharma (talk) 19:21, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to 1950 Barisal Riots. slakr^\ talk / 01:59, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ilsaghat massacre

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

Fails GNG Darkness Shines (talk) 06:46, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In what way would it fail general notability guideline? A massacre of around 30 people definitely is notable, and it would also seem that maritime and aviation incidents even have a stronger notalibity in Wikipedia, as this massacre happened on S.S. Sitakunda. --Pudeo ' 18:00, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable incident. More so in the context of persecution of minorities in erstwhile East Pakistan, now Bangladesh. BengaliHindu (talk) 14:16, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:39, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:39, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:39, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:39, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Massacres of about 30 people is notable. good sourcing.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:09, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good sourcing? Are you on crack? It has one source, from 1950. Hahahahahaha Darkness Shines (talk) 23:14, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember to comment on the argument, not the person making it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:54, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - only a single source given, that too seems to be unreliable, can't even say if it's really a massacre or a boat capsize, or whether there was actually any casualties there. --Zayeem ^(talk) 17:22, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete, I had thought this would be a slam-dunk keep, but there doesn't appear to be much in the way of other reliable sources on this topic. I concede that coverage may be available in Bengali, or under another name, but I don't think this is verifiable enough to keep at the moment. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:05, 22 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete, insufficiently notable as only one source provided and none others found. Stifle (talk) 15:06, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, since we gauge an incident's notability with respect to its coverage in reliable sources and not with respect to its severity or some other attribute, I find it a non notable incident, given the fact that it finds mention in only two sources: the one in the article (that I am unable to verify) and the other (Page 141) one that doesn't verify much of the details in the article. Any useful info after verification can be merged into 1950 Barisal Riots. -- SMS ^Talk 18:01, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Very less information obtained from a single source. Fails notability until matter from genuine sources can be obtained. Kanga Roo in the Zoo (talk) 20:38, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to 1950 Barisal Riots, which can cover the relevant, verifiable information. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:53, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect, at least until a full article can be provided -- This is a badly written article on one event in a campaign of persecution of minorities. I am not qualified to judge how significant the events were, but the whole campaign was clearly significant. Whether a good article on this subject is possible, will depend of the quality of the source material available. If it is no more than the odd paragraph in newspapers of the day, it is probably better staying merged. If there are WP:RS giving detail, it can be reinstated in due course. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:20, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Bushranger. Good idea: it allows us to save the material history, while keeping to our policies. Bearian (talk) 21:52, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:01, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cristian Adolfo González

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 06:44, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following article for the same reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 06:46, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 06:46, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both - appear to fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:59, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - per nom. Fenix down (talk) 15:21, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Page indicates he spent 2 years with Cortuluá. Other sources seem to show 4 years. This Columbian side was in the top league, listed in WP:FPL during part of that time. If he appeared, he meets WP:FPL but I don't know a good source for 10-year old Columbian match reports. Nfitz (talk) 03:10, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Jogurney: or @Digirami: are good for finding sources for South American players. If one can be found which verifies this claim to notability then please ping me back so I can re-review. Giant Snowman 18:22, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find any mentions of González in the Colombian press during 2003 or 2004 when he was apparently on the books of Cortuluá. As a young goalkeeper, it is likely he never made the first team during this time, so I'm not terribly surprised. Jogurney (talk) 14:17, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In regards to the former... The full name of the league he currently play in the "Segunda Division Profesional," indicating that he plays in a professional league where according to the league guidelines "must have a written contract showing all agreements, on the deadline, economic and other conditions that establish mutual agreement" (roughly translated from Google because it's Saturday and I'm too lazy) (Guidelines, Chapter III, at the end of chapter 7). Digirami (talk) 21:35, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - but that doesn't mean that the league is fully professional. Fenix down (talk) 15:27, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It does not mean it is not. Sure does look like one to me. Digirami (talk) 01:14, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - that does not matter, if it is not on the FPL list then there is no consensus that it is. The FPL list by definition operates on an inclusive basis. The comment from league guidelines about a contract does not indicate FPL status in any way. A contract would be necessary even if the player was not getting paid by the club to deal with registration, transfers, image rights, etc. Also the presence of a contract does not mean a player is earning enough for it to be his sole source of income.

Comment - Then how do you determine that? Do you ask every player individually to see if they make enough off football to make it their sole source of income? If football being the sole source of income is the only criteria to determine FPL, then would that not exclude a lot of famous players because football is not their sole source of income (they have endorsement contracts and what not). The way I see it, you also need evidence to prove this player is not in a professional league. Absent of that, you'll have to take everything else at face value. If the governing body of the sport in that country says he plays in a professional football league, I'll back it to say it is fully pro. Whether the guy is famous/known enough to merit an article is a different story. Digirami (talk) 01:11, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - whether you back it to be fully pro or not is irrelevant, as I am sure you well know. WP is based on consensus and verifiability, that is why the FPL list is as it is with sources for all the fully pro leagues. Currently this league is not on it so it is not considered by consensuis fully pro. If you have sources that you believe indicate that it is fully pro, please start a discussion at WT:FOOTY, I am more than happy to support the inclusion of more leagues if they can be shown to be fully professional. Fenix down (talk) 12:33, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both these players do not meet notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:45, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW. postdlf (talk) 16:21, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Bieber in popular culture

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

Bieber is a big name and current celebrity, therefore likely to be mentioned all over the place, all the time. This list, mentioning things like his songs being covered by a YouTube group, his song being used in a Just Dance video game, various TV shows mentioning him... all very unimportant. Nothing even merge-worthy here. Gloss • talk 06:08, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and per WP:TRIVIA and/or WP:FANCRUFT. Some of this could be mentioned at Justin Bieber, the cover versions at the articles for the songs, etc. Ivanvector (talk) 18:32, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Non notable cruft. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 19:55, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Barely even meets the need for being called "cruft". Collect (talk) 21:08, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per Collect. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:16, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone above, not encyclopedic at all -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:24, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:01, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Team HYPER

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

Unverified article about a team that participates in a US high-school competition. Such teams are not notable unless there's extensive coverage to satisfy the GNG, and there is none. Drmies (talk) 05:39, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - if the FIRSTwiki were still active, I would say transwiki it over there. The awards won put them above average for FRC teams, but not within notability for Wikipedia. Too Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill. Chris857 (talk) 15:39, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ORG. Student club at a single school. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:13, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Quincy High School as a non-notable (by our standards) team from that school. Their competition wins fail WP:SIGCOV. Ivanvector (talk) 18:36, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I oppose merger, especially since this is associated with both of Quincy's high schools, not just with QHS. I also don't see this as a credible search term for either school. Ravenswing 23:52, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Stifle (talk) 15:06, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Height and intelligence

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

Not a notable topic. For the most part this is just a hodgepodge of primary sources lumped together using editor synthesis. Phrases like: "several epidemological studies...", "A recent study ...", "Studies of ...", "Studies have ...", "A large study ...", etc, make it clear that wikipedia editors are the ones attempting to do a review here, instead of qualified researchers. Searches on google scholar and other venues only turn up primary sources and passing mentions. aprock (talk) 04:33, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A review of the historic talk page discussion indicates that concerns about the notability of this topic have persisted over many years. aprock (talk) 04:36, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Any encyclopedic can be merged into human height. aprock (talk) 04:38, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - any notable info can be found in human height. Topic by itself is not notable. Volunteer Marek (talk) 11:31, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The human height article does not currently use the word intelligence at all. Moving this content there would require us to keep the content per our editing policy. See below for a detailed rebuttal of the assertion that the topic is not notable. Andrew (talk) 18:30, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Heritability of IQ. The subject is notable, but it is too narrow an interest to warrant an independent article.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:32, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Well-structured article on mildly interesting topic. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:42, 14 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Keep The numerous sources demonstrate that the topic is, in fact, notable. Papers such as On the sources of the height–intelligence correlation are not primary sources. Andrew (talk) 10:36, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The paper you list is certainly a primary source. Did you read the abstract? aprock (talk) 15:11, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have read the entire paper. It references and draws upon the work of numerous researchers and is analytical in nature. It is secondary in nature per WP:SECONDARY, "A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's interpretation, analysis, or evaluation of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources.". Q.E.D. Andrew (talk) 18:08, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your interpretation of secondary source is not correct. While the source does indeed refer to prior work, it is not a review article, but is a research article presenting new conclusions. aprock (talk) 04:56, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A review would be tertiary as it would summarise other sources. The paper in question starts by making such a literature review in its detailed introduction. The paper is respectable and scholarly and so seems quite suitable for our use. Andrew (talk) 08:27, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A two paragraph introduction listing prior work in an academic research paper is hardly enough to establish notability. aprock (talk) 08:09, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That source satisfies WP:SIGCOV and is just one example. The article in question has 22 sources which are ample to demonstrate notability. And here's another five sources. Such extensive coverage makes the topic quite notable by our standards. Andrew (talk) 18:30, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep merging to Heritability of IQ is a bad idea without better empirical evidence examining the relationship, there is enough handwave over there already. Pete.Hurd (talk) 19:49, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - poor amalgamation of sources with no synopsis of the information. This may be an interesting topic but this is not written in an encyclopedic fashion. If the author would stick with just the facts, this would not be much of an article.Heyinternetman (talk) 01:07, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I clicked the link to the government website and read through it. [32] There are a lot of studies about this. Common sense though, if you are tall you don't get bullied, so you are able to study and have confidence. Otherwise you just play dumb and don't bring attention towards yourself. Dream Focus 19:05, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, part of me thinks this is some subtle commentary on the idiocy surrounding the Race and intelligence article, but I must concede that this has been the topic of scholarly research over a period of time, and the sources do support having an article on the topic. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:00, 22 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:15, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shattered Skies

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

Does not meet WP:BAND. Provided sources do not meet WP:RS and I can't find any. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:02, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the sources listed only mention the band and do not have extensive coverage of them. Of the remainder only four were not from blogs or were not self-published (Facebook and YouTube):

http://metalmouth.net doesn't appear to have any editorial staff but the "Team Of Writers" "cover all genres of rock and metal, regardless of our personal taste".
http://www.progrockmag.com/ may meet RS based on http://weareteamrock.com/about, but no staff are listed.
http://got-djent.com/ is a fan forum based on http://got-djent.com/about where they have administrators, a webmaster and content moderators but no writers.
http://www.nocleansinging.com/ isn't a RS per http://www.nocleansinging.com/about/.

So unfortunately, they do not meet BAND. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:05, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 'Seems precipitant at this point to delete on those grounds. If it is determined there are no reliable sources OR more importantly that the band d/n meet notability requirements, that'd be different. Paavo273 (talk) 00:43, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- What? Our job is to determine if there are or are not reliable sources and I just showed that there are none. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:51, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - coverage to date (from the article plus a Google search) appears to fall short of meeting WP:GNG or WP:BAND. Gong show 04:59, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. New band, might be notable in future, do not appear to be now. Can anyone provide non-trivial, RS cites to demonstrate notability? --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 16:22, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Two points. Your first point aligns with WP:TOOSOON. The second point, however, is a little odd as it's the job of any AfD discussion to find those sources. It's not the job of some defender of the article to do that. In other words we're not evaluating whether the existing sources are sufficient rather it's to determine if the subject is notable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:40, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith. If I ask, "are there sources?", that means I looked, could not find, but am open enlightenment from better-informed or more diligent editors. And if I am being particularly stupid or lazy, please feel free to embarrass me with an abundance of obvious, easily obtained cites. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 14:34, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete no major awards . Sources provided are not entirely third party, fails WP:BAND. LibStar (talk) 12:00, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 08:40, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AJ Lee & Layla

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

This "tag team" was hardly even a short term alliance and hardly lasted a month. This should barely be included as a footnote in either participants personal pages, let alone warranting its own page Wrestlings Savior (talk) 00:05, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. No indication of notability.LM2000 (talk) 19:35, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete: I'm comfy with a speedy; aside from that there are no independent sources, the article makes no assertions of notability whatsoever. Ravenswing 21:29, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete No Notable --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 15:14, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) buff bills 7701 22:39, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

David Yalof

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

Little evidence of notability. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:N Jsharpminor (talk) 01:21, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article just now is pretty much just a CV, but the main ground for notability is that he meets WP:AUTHOR for Pursuit of Justices per reviews[33][34][35][36][37] NBC News calls it "the definitive book on post-World War II Supreme Court nominees".[38]

As far as other sources:

Prosecution among Friends has 1 academic review[39]
He's also appeared as an expert on NPR more than once[40][41] and in other media[42][43]

He doesn't definitely meet WP:ACADEMIC but being regarded as an expert by the media might meet #7. He's co-written 2 textbooks (American Government: Historical, Popular and Global Perspectives and Constitutional Law: Civil Liberty and Individual Rights) so if they're popular enough he might meet WP:ACADEMIC #4. He's a Department Head though not a named/distinguished professor[44] --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:50, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A GS h-index of 8 is barely marginal for WP:Prof#C1, although he does have one book with over 100 cites. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:00, 12 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Keep per AUTHOR #3 multiple book reviews. -- GreenC 04:11, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Book holdings >1000. The article should be culled of WP:PUFF, like "notable articles", and WP:OR. Agricola44 (talk) 16:22, 18 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 08:32, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anita Kelsey - Cat Behaviourist

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

No indication that the subject meets the notability guidelines for inclusion. All material related to her is self-generated or non-reliable (social media, etc). §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:52, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the references in the article are independent. I was unable to find any significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:27, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. I couldn't find anything either. It doesn't help that the page is borderline promotional. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:34, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. no independant sources to establish notability.TheLongTone (talk) 17:22, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. ~~If this could be sourced it could be merged with Anita Kelsey, which itself is somewhat questionable--she's worked with notable artists but it looks like primarily in a backup-singer capacity.~~ Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:44, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It should be merged with Anita Kelsey, She has worked with notable artists and, if you do some research, most of her work has been as a lead vocalist and not a backing singer. Her lead vocals were also on Dark City — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures User:Buickmaria comment added by Buickmaria (talk • contribs) 19:30, 12 February 2014 (UTC) --Buickmaria (talk) 19:54, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We appreciate your comment, but there is nothing to merge here. They are two different people. I think (judging by the comment you left on my talk page) that you're under the impression that Anita Kelsey the artist is up for deletion here, but I assure you it is not. This discussion does not affect that bio in any way. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:46, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now I'm getting confused. What makes you think they are different people? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:15, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the link in the page goes to the singer's page, but we should find something to back up that they're the same person. I don't immediately see anything on the singer's website that shows that she's currently a cat behaviorist. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 01:30, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm actually seriously doubting whether the singer and the cat behaviorist are the same people, since the singer's website doesn't mention the cat profession at all and the about pages for the cat lady don't mention her singing at all. The complete absence of a mention of either profession on either page is a little suspect, as you'd imagine that the cat Anita would mention that she did her studying while performing on stage, given the amount of detail she goes into on her "about me" page. We can't automatically assume that they're the same person because they share the same name and location. They do have a similarity, but we can't entirely go by their similarities or differences visually because the singer's photo seems to have had some photoshopping and makeup effects done. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 01:35, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This could very well be two different people, as the discog page for the singer Anita has her active as of 2011 and mentions that she is still currently active as a singer. There seems to have been a re-recording or something of one of her songs in 2013, so again- I'm a little leery that the singing Anita doesn't mention a cat business and the cat Anita doesn't mention a singing career. Given the amount of detail on either page, I'd think that there would be a link or a small mention or something to that effect. It could be that she's trying to keep the two worlds separate completely, but you'd think that there would be at least some mention of it somewhere in the cat Anita's website, blog, etc. I think that right now we should treat them as two separate people unless we can show some sort of evidence that they are the same person- after all, it's entirely possible that the person who created the article mistook them for the same person. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 01:46, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I assumed that the mention of the singer in the behaviorist's article was a ploy. I'm just not seeing how they would be the same person. Not even remotely. If I'm wrong then I suppose we can add a blurb to the singer's bio. But again, a successful and apparently still active singer suddenly becoming a kitty shrink? Not sure I buy that. This isn't the bio of a former artist. In any case, why not just add that to the singer bio in the first place? And from a merge perspective, we can't add a blurb to the artist bio about the cat thing without verifying that she is indeed running a cat clinic. I sure wasn't able to source that at all. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 01:55, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I'm sort of leaning towards them being two different people that just happen to have some remarkable similarities. I wouldn't be surprised if they are the same person, but I wouldn't be surprised if they weren't either. Until we have firm confirmation that they're the same person, we should treat them as separate individuals. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 02:59, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: OK, I might have found some confirmation. In her official profile on CFBA the cat Anita has a black and white photograph of herself when she was younger (right side column). Now on the singer's website we have the same photograph. Of course this isn't her saying that she is a cat behaviorist or a singer on either site, but we do have something to work with now. Until we have some sort of written confirmation rather than just the one photograph, we should still treat the two as separate individuals. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:07, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Someone could email the singers management perhaps to verify. Whose up for asking them if she's a kitty shrink now LOL?----Buickmaria (talk) 10:53, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see what I can do. It's not unheard of for entertainment people to take on jobs in other fields, but normally they leave some sort of mention or trail somewhere. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:31, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I contacted Anita Kelsey and yes, they are the same person. However she specifically requested that the cat information not be merged into the page for her as a singer, as she wants to keep those two careers specifically separate. So in other words, the lack of a mention on either page of the other career was deliberate. I think that this is a reasonable request, as technically we'd have to have coverage of her career as a cat behaviorist to really post about it on her main page as a whole. Since we don't have that, we could somewhat justify not merging the data into the main page. In any case, my vote is to delete the cat behaviorist page and not merge anything. I think it's reasonable to respect Kelsey's wishes on the matter. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:15, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Excellent job! Obviously I was wrong then, but I guess if she doesn't want this article then deletion is the best outcome. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:12, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good research there, and I agree we shouldn't merge anything, though I'd say this should be due to lack of reliable sources rather than by request. Plenty of celebrities have second careers, and it would be just bizarre for Wikipedia to treat them as wholle seperate persons. For example, if Miley Cyrus or her manager wanted us to pretend her acting career and her singing career were two seperate people, we couldn't possibly honour that request. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:23, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Promotional in intent. Fails GNG. Carrite (talk) 06:22, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as It's more like an advert than an article, & It fails GNG. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 13:00, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:34, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy Ball

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

Wasn't notable last times Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Ball,Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timothy Ball nothings changed. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:00, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Michael E. Mann called him "perhaps the most prominent climate change denier in Canada". To say he's not notable doesn't have any effect except to make wikipedia look stupid. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 00:50, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not as an academic since he retired 18 years ago, but as a notable activist and public figure opposing the scientific consensus on climate change. I have no idea what the previously deleted version of the article looked like, but this one shows notability, though that doesn't mean I agree with the guy. Lots of people think that Wikipedia looks "stupid". They are wrong. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:41, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Ball is a notable climate skeptic.

Reference for SamuelTheGhost's quote above: Michael E. Mann, The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches from the Front Lines (New York: Columbia University Press, 2012), 95. Mann, of course, is the eminent Penn State climatologist.
"Ball-the-climate-expert seemed to be everywhere--on the radio, in the newspapers, on the lecture circuit, even testifying before a committee in the Canadian parliament." Jim Hoggan, Climate Cover-Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming (Vancouver, BC: Greystone Books, 2009), 49. See also pp. 51-54, 57, 97, 108, 134, 142-44, 165. Of course Hoggan was being facetious when he called Ball a climate expert, but he was serious about his ubiquity.
"Prof. Ball surveys the crowd and runs a hand over his suntanned dome. He does not appear the least bit fatigued, which is remarkable considering that the 67-year-old former University of Winnipeg professor has spent much of the last couple of months crisscrossing the country, addressing community forums, business groups, newspaper editorial boards and politicians about climate change. He has been nearly as dogged as Al Gore, whose own globe-hopping slide show is the subject of the documentary film, An Inconvenient Truth." Charles Montgomery, "Mr. Cool and Friends," Globe and Mail, 12 August 2006. Cited by Hoggan, Iris Borowy, and and a host of bloggers, including Richard Littlemore.
He appeared on Glenn Beck's show in 2007. He was also in the film, The Great Global Warming Swindle. He's been mentioned in the National Geographic News, the NYT.
Look at the 59 references in the article itself. Yopienso (talk) 04:36, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I offer no opinion on whether the article should be deleted or not, but as one of the three admins who approved the return of this article to mainspace, I feel I should rebut the "nothings [sic] changed" part of the nomination statement. The article is several times larger than the version that was deleted two-and-a-half years ago, and it contains several references and significant material that were not present in that version. To say that nothing has changed is frankly absurd. Discussion of the notability of the subject should be welcomed, but should not be conducted on the false premise that this article is a carbon copy of the version that was the subject of the last AfD. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:22, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The same sources as are in the article as were discussed at the previous AfDs. What has changed in terms of notability of Ball. Why has he suddenly become notable when he previously wasn't. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:44, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Several things have changed quite dramatically, IRWolfie-. The current version of the article includes significant coverage in reliable sources apparently not present in earlier versions of the article. The current debate properly focuses on his notability as a public policy activist rather than as an academic. And at least partially as as a result, consensus has changed quite decisively. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:11, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe Hoggan's book was in the other ones, nor National Geographic News, nor some of the NYT and HuffPost refs. Yopienso (talk) 16:34, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep my Google search showed plenty of evidence of notability. Also, there is already a fair amount of evidence seen above. Northern Antarctica (talk) Previously known as AutomaticStrikeout 15:48, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This article is well written, well documented, and the subject is notable. JD Lambert^(T|C) 03:23, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep - The subject clearly passes WP:BASIC. In addition to sources provided above by User:Yopienso, there's also:

– Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:55, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:34, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pomodoro Technique

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

Promotional insertion made at the same time in many languages. Only advertising and no scientifical studies can prove and justify the 25 minutes rule chosen arbitrarly by the "inventor" of the technique. Mlvtrglvn (talk) 07:17, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Invalid reasoning - just because you think it's unscientific doesn't mean it's not notable: if other people criticise it, add a "criticism" section. It has a lot of coverage. The article cites the WSJ, NYTimes, and books. I found various other results online.[45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54] --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:39, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep plenty of evidence of notability. Northern Antarctica (talk) 16:19, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As Colapeninsula notes, many high quality reliable sources for this technique exist. A GScholar search shows that it is also notable within the software engineering field. This topic is highly notable. The article is not excessively promotional; any cleanup needed is a surmountable problem, per WP:SURMOUNTABLE and is thus no reason for deletion. A highly notable topic and surmountable article problems suggest keeping the article. --Mark viking (talk) 20:10, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Appears notable and well sourced. If there's some general article title this technique and the other similar ones can be merged into with re-directs for the individual ones, that might be worth exploring. Paavo273 (talk) 00:46, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Seems clearly to be notable. If it seems a bit spammy, it can be cleaned up but it shouldn't be deleted. Abbenm (talk) 01:21, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The nominator has not given a valid reason for deletion. The content of the article is backed by reliable sources such as the Wall Street Journal. --Joshua Issac (talk) 09:38, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] [55]

[2] ttp://www.linkedin.com/in/zrichard

[1]

[2]