Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 June 18

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 17 June	19 June >

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. (non-admin closure) --Mdann52talk to me! 07:42, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IXS Enterprise

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

This is not, and never will be, anything more than a well-thought-out piece of concept art. While its unveiling attracted a lot of media attention, Wikipedia is not the news and if WP:ONEEVENT can be extended to an article of this nature then it would certainly apply - it is extremely unlikely to ever be heard from again and will be quickly forgotten. If we had an article for every concept design of a spacecraft we would be swamped with them. I cannot see this being notable enough to warrant inclusion, especially in the long term. W. D. Graham 21:49, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is more than a well-thought-out piece of concept art. The article should focus on the ideas and concepts that scientists have come up with, for the development of warp travel. It may sound sci-fi, but many scientists have good reasons to believe that it is not only possible (see references to other wiki pages in the article), but to actually provide a concept design, of how a ship with such capabilities could look like. I agree that it may fade in time, and become irrelevant to actual science and engineering of such spacecraft, but it may also be an image of a real thing that people will work towards. Anyway, I'm not an experienced Wikipedia editor and moderator to be citing rules and practices, so I will agree to any well founded decision that will be reached by the community. Capilleary (talk) 00:07, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, to the user above me, you're suggesting a keep, correct? Sabhansali (talk) 06:27, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with Capilleary. It is a well thought out concept which incorporates actual physics and experimentation being done by NASA. The article isn't only about the concept art, either. It shows other information about the concept, such as experiments being done and the amount of energy that it would potentially require. It's the first of its kind to be proposed by a large scientific entity (NASA). White has been experimenting with the entire concept since 2010. I firmly believe that it should have its own Wikipedia page in order to inform people of the concept and what it encompasses. Copulative (talk) 06:07, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely propose that Wikipedia keeps this article. It's a representation of some of the work that NASA has been doing for multiple years now. If it was just concept art, then I would agree with you; however, as the user above me stated, it encompasses the entire concept, including the physics, of White's proposed theoretical warp drive technology. I'd also like to point out that you cited the WP:NOTNEWS article. It says not to post the following: Journalism, news reports, "who's who," and diaries. The IXS Enterprise concept is none of those. Sure, it was reported by the news, but that doesn't change the fact that it's a fully scientific concept that has had hundreds if not thousands of hours put into it by both the physicists and the artists. For these reasons I propose that the article is not deleted. Sabhansali (talk) 06:18, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:09, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:09, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable flash in the pan. Fails both WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTJOURNAL. --TorriTorri(^talk/_contribs) 06:48, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Torritorri, I already explained why this does not fall under the scope of WP:NOTNEWS in my previous post. Additionally, I do not believe that it falls under any of the nine categories for WP:NOTJOURNAL. I see both of your arguments as invalid. Sabhansali (talk) 14:52, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is most definitely not a flash in the pan but an ongoing embodiment of the work of a NASA project, the physics of FTL transport and the brainchild of one of the founders of Project Icarus - an International Organization of leading scientist and engineers dedicated to starship R & D.ArtKocsis (talk) 19:47, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's a spacecraft concept, which, while might never get built (and very likely never will be), it is something created in all seriousness to demonstrate a concept viability (and for PR purposes as well, true). There are other articles on Wikipedia that are similarly about a concept for a spacecraft that also are quite unlikely to ever get built (Nautilus-X comes to mind). If anything, I'd suggest finding more information and expanding, or if this article REALLY needs to go, merging with another apropriate article on the warp field subject. --JamesFKirk (talk) 14:24, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The user above me has a great point. If IXS Enterprise has to go, why should Nautilus-X be allowed to stay? They are both conceptual spacecrafts. Plain and simple. Sabhansali (talk) 14:58, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is not just concept art. The image is an engineering model of the status of current theoretical efforts to advance the possibility and state of FTL transport. The subject matter and discussion is about active research and results by leading scientists and engineers that have been ongoing for over forty years^[1].

If anything, the article needs to be expanded with discussions of the scientific basis of design details (for example, the modification of the "doughnuts" reduced the estimated energy requirements from 2x10^27 kg to 700 kg rest mass equivalent)^[2], and with additional external links (for example, to Icarus Interstellar).ArtKocsis (talk) 19:46, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Better than anything come up with so far and represents a fusion of BTEDan's "Enterprise" with the current state of the art on FTL propulsion concepts. My own work suggests White is on the right track and as such this deserves to see the light of day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.111.204.224 (talk) 13:05, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep More than just concept art. Obviously it's a (very) long-term project, but NASA is taking the science behind it seriously. Wjfox2005 (talk) 14:54, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus Alright, so I believe we can agree that this article needs to be expanded upon rather than deleted. Copulative (talk) 21:03, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP This article is well sourced, notable, and quite frankly, it is a very good article compared to some that I've seen. I would also like to add that if Wikipedia is going to start trashing concept art as unencyclopedic, then I think in order to be consistent, older concepts should be nominated as well such as The Illinois, a supertall skyscraper that was intended to be a mile high and never built. (Tigerghost (talk) 02:52, 24 June 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Keep This design has been produced by a qualified engineer in concert with graphic artists. NASA are willing to be associated with such an activity and as such its no less serious than the Hundred Year Starship program at DARPA. 11:36, 24 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.17.11.20 (talk)

KEEP There is no reason at all why this should be deleted while other conceptual projects, such as the ones users above me mentioned, should be allowed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teh SB (talk • contribs) 21:47, 25 June 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 Ironman World Championship. (non-admin closure) --Mdann52talk to me! 07:43, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of non-professional Ironman Kona Finishers

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

This list is unsourced. There is no evidence that this concept is notable. And, also, it is very short. We should not have a separate list article if only two individuals fulfill the criteria for inclusion. And, by the way, the incusion criteria is very vague. What doe that mean to be "known for their accomplishments"? We are all known to somebody for some accomplishments. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:41, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:07, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:07, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A non-notable concept. There are 2,000 non-professional finishers in this race each year [1]. The two individuals listed should simply just have [[Category:Triathlete]] added to their article. Barkeep^Chat/_$ 14:09, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Ironman World Championship. If people have their participation reported in reliable sources such as[2][3] they can be mentioned in the article on the event, but it doesn't mean this is a notable article subject. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:04, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This seems like an obvious case of original research.204.126.132.231 (talk) 16:20, 24 June 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 Modem. (non-admin closure) --Mdann52talk to me! 07:43, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

56 kbit/s modem

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

Unreferenced, thus fails WP:GNG. If deleted, a disambiguation page should be created between Point4 and Motorola 56000 per the hatnote. Laun chba ller 21:23, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notability requires that references on a topic exist, not that they are currently cited in an article. There are very many independent reliable sources with significant coverage on 56 kbps modems. The AfD guidelines' WP:BEFORE section lists steps to carry out before nominating an article for deletion, including "Consider whether the article could be improved rather than deleted. If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD." Agyle (talk) 21:39, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as needs sourcing but certainly not deleting. –Davey2010 • (talk) 21:53, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Modem - I do believe stuff like this is encyclopedic and worth covering but at the same time I don't think we need so many different articles on what all relates to one thing and I suppose it's better to "have it under one roof", than to have each and every related article unsourced and possibly facing it's fate here. -

(TL;DR - One big article's better than loads unsourced) –Davey2010 • (talk) 16:40, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How does that require a nutshell comment? Even with it, the whole thing is shorter than Agyle's comment! (I'd say a general rule of thumb is put one if your comment goes into the second paragraph without it.--Laun chba ller 19:50, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because I tend to waffle on and so having the tldr makes it easier for anyone not wanting to read a longish paragraph... Nothing wrong with making everyone's life easier.. –Davey2010 • (talk) 19:54, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:04, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:04, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with modem. Having an article for each speed of modem is ludicrous. Do we need an article on 28.8 or 33.6 or 53? CombatWombat42 (talk) 22:36, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In a sense, no article is "needed", but being needed isn't normally one of the factors for Wikipedia:Merging#Reasons for merger; the scope of this article extends beyond that of modem, and as it currently stands seems appropriate for a standalone article. Splits and mergers are often based on the depth of coverage of an article, which in turn are often based on what someone feels like writing, more than some objective need for an article. It's not like a Wikipedia boss can order underlings to write a 33.6k modem article. :-) Agyle (talk) 23:20, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with modem. Most of the design data/standards and characteristics are already in the modem article, and any additional historical aspect/content can be added in. It's also a natural progression, and evolve-ment from 1200baud numbers (devices) to 56k using more advanced signal multiplexing each time. Merge. scope_creep talk 01:15 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Keep Being unreferenced does not equate to being non-notable. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 06:49, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
While obviously the topic is notable enough for keep !vote, I'd rather go for merge to modem: 56K are not particularily special, and encyclopedic coverage within a topic of modems in general would simply be more practical. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 16:10, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the longstanding incompatible standards in the marketplace distinguish this speed from some others. But whether or not that's true, 56k modems are already covered in Modem, and merging this into that article would make the coverage far longer and more detailed than comparable subtopics, which is the primary rationale for Wikipedia:Content forking into standalone articles. Agyle (talk) 22:11, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, most content is already there, so this merge is unlikely to change modem article too much. I would not oppose keep or merge resolution for this AfD, so that more detailed merge discussion could take place and work out possible issues without constrains of unambiguous AfD resolution. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 06:30, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Modem. It's a modem. That's about all that needs to be said. Creating articles for individual and arbitrary speed computer hardware is indiscriminate. Merge is OK, but I don't think it's necessary. I sincerely hope that we don't see individual articles on 60 MHz Pentiums, 66 MHz Pentiums, 75 MHz Pentiums, etc. A single, encyclopedic article that describes the topic in-depth is much, much better a series of unnecessary content forks that dedicate entirely way too much attention to minutiae. Given the massive popularity of the Pentium architecture, I probably could create referenced articles on each individual chip. But that doesn't mean that I should. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:21, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into a new article This subject is obviously notable, as it has been said before, so this article shouldn't be deleted, but I think the content of the modem pages should be better-organized. You could make a new article called "Dial-up modem" with content from this page and from the modem page, and make the 56k modem page redirect to dial-up modem. Then, the content would be more organized: The modem page would be about modems in general, while the dial-up modem page would be devoted to dial-up modems. Currently, most of the modem page is about dial-up modems, which is messy. The Quirky Kitty (talk) 22:20, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Why not reorganize the modem article instead? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 06:30, 21 June 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:45, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Etherington

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

Article is about a model who does not meet notability. The only reference in the article is a dead link to a modelling agency. Being listed with a modelling agency does not establish notability. In my own searches, I was only able to find coverage in a local paper. See [4]. Whpq (talk) 20:55, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:03, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:03, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:03, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Apart from modelling, he sounds like a shop manager. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:47, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:42. A quick search online found nothing of import. Bearian (talk) 17:16, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:42 (a nice recap). Found nothing of use. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 02:19, 25 June 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 Ponerology. (non-admin closure) --Mdann52talk to me! 07:44, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Andrzej Łobaczewski

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

Not notable. Only sources a fringe site and one of his books. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 19:32, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is a stub and should be marked as such, but the subject of the article is a noted Polish psychiatrist. If a Polish speaking editor wanted to look at this, they could probably resolve the source issue fairly quickly. A quick search turns up academic papers as well, though again they are not in my native language.Christopher Lotito (talk) 20:31, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I too searched using Google and on the Polish WP but found nothing to support notability. Having written papers proves nothing, especially for a fringe author: even if published that could have been by a fringe publisher not considered a reliable source.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 22:19, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:00, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:01, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:01, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:01, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:01, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep and/or merge to/with ponerology. Looking around, I'm seeing several citations, discussions, and reviews of his book Political Ponerology, but no one of them is particularly stellar. I imagine this may be in part because of a language barrier, but there's visible to me to merit a weak keep. Doesn't seem like it merits two articles, though. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 00:59, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Zero cites on Google scholar. Can anything else be found? Xxanthippe (talk) 05:41, 19 June 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Merge and redirect. Oddly the ponerology article and this one do not cross-cite. I agree with User:Rhododendrites. Furthermore, subject was effectively the spokesperson of a group of researchers who were hiding from communist persecution, rather than the outright author. More, which could be built into the merged article, here: [[5]].Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 15:33, 22 June 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) 03:17, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Master stability of the synchronized state

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

Notability of subject not established. McDoob AU93 19:29, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:57, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The concept is clearly notable: see for example [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]; [11], [12]. A better title for the article would probably be Master stability function or Master stability function framework. Deltahedron (talk) 20:44, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. This one's obvious. In its _present_ state, the article does not establish notability, but since that can obviously be done, the remedy is to cite a few sources. Michael Hardy (talk) 16:14, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but the WP:BLOWITUP is tempting. The present state of the article fails {{db-context}}. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:44, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Now fixed, no problem with Keep. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:06, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I edited the article so that it is clearer what it is about. I added two references, both of which have 1000 citations according to Google Scholar, to establish notability. I agree with renaming as Deltahedron suggested. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 10:39, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Jitse's fine edit has both established context and explained the topic much better than before. His added citations and Deltahedron's RS finds establish notability through multiple RS; in particular the Physics Reports paper is just the sort of secondary source we look for. Demonstration of notability and a now-reasonable stub suggest keeping the article. After keeping, a rename to Master stability function would an improvement. --Mark viking (talk) 21:35, 23 June 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) --Mdann52talk to me! 07:45, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Wyllie

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

Wyllie is hardly notable enough to warrant a page of his own, and on many different occasions, I have suggested that the page needs to be seriously reworked or redirected to the election page. The same anonymous users have removed these suggestions without any sort of explanation as to why. It seems highly likely that these users are affiliated with his campaign in some form or another, as their only edits have been on Wyllie's page, and on one other. Tqycolumbia (talk) 19:23, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:56, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:56, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:56, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As both a Wikipedia editor since 2005, and the subject of this article, I normally wouldn't edit anything directly related to me unless to correct a blatant factual error. However, I believe this AFD submission to be politically motivated, so I feel it's only fair for me to respond. I suggest that all you need to do to determine notability is to do a Google news search for my name. PlainSight (talk) 03:19, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's curious to me that the subject of this article thinks that he can give an unbiased opinion on whether the article about him should be deleted. He suggests that I do a Google news search for his name. However, the only things that really come up are a few articles from The Examiner and news articles that mention his name without providing any elaboration or information about him whatsoever. He has never held public office before, he has been included in a grand total of one poll on one occasion by one pollster, and his entire article is a summary of his activism that mostly sources explicitly libertarian news outlets. He accuses me of being "politically motivated" in my nomination of his article for deletion, but a quick glance at the list of edits on his page shows that users with explicitly libertarian usernames have provided the bulk of the article. I have made thousands of edits on Wikipedia over the last three years, including substantial edits on the vast majority of current state legislators in Florida, and not once have I been accused of bias or any sort of political motivation. My political beliefs are not relevant to this conversation, but I will offer that any time I edit the page of a politician I admire or like, I still include reference to controversy or criticism. It is exceedingly rare for a third party candidate to have a page of their own, and it is even more rare for a third party candidate to have a page of their own when they are not a candidate for president, nor a have they ever been an office holder. In the (unlikely) event that Wyllie becomes a serious contender in the general election, and in the (even unlikelier) event that he wins, I will happily retract my nomination. But for now, I think that this is an acceptable line to draw. Tqycolumbia (talk) 22:48, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To Tqycolumbia, as AfD submitter, your delete vote is already assumed. -PlainSight (talk) 17:55, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject is clearly notable, he has received significant national and regional coverage particularly on the Real Id topic.Jacona (talk) 13:31, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Does it make that much of a difference who has created or made the vast majority of edits on a page? You think a Republican was the first person to give Hillary or Obama their first Wiki entry? That portion of your argument is irrelevant. Wikipedia is full of so many useless entries for useless people, that the only motivation I can find for suggesting that this be deleted is that it must be political. I'm sorry if you think Wikipedia will provide legitimacy for a third party candidate and that your favorite candidate might lose some votes. To JaconaFrere's point, the candidate receives regional and national coverage particular on Real ID. He is mentioned enough on non-libertarian news reports that an article is warranted (I heard of him on NPR). I'd like to add that the candidate was invited to the gubernatorial debates. If the election commission think he's legit enough to debate, then Wikipedia should find him legit enough to include an entry on him. Just admit that your suggestion for deletion is politically motivated so we can move on. Dskirsa (talk) 15:51, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the significant coverage in this article^WebCite and this article^WebCite from cltampa.com (which is owned by Nashville Scene#SouthComm Communications), as well as this article^WebCite from Key West Citizen and this article^WebCite from WFTS-TV.
In order, the articles are titled "Libertarian gubernatorial candidate Adrian Wyllie gets his day in court", " Adrian Wyllie on why you should make him governor", "Libertarian candidate Wyllie weighs in", and "Pinellas Libertarian won't get a driver's license and he won't stop driving". The article should be kept because Adrian Wyllie passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Cunard (talk) 04:58, 26 June 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. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 21:43, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vijay Mistry

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

This was an article, then a redirect, now an article again. This is the drummer for a popular band, he replaced the original drummer a few years ago but that's pretty much all he's done. Probably meets WP:NBAND #2 by playing on a number 1 album, however because he fails WP:GNG (by a long way!) I believe the article should be deleted or redirected back to the band article, as that is his sole claim to fame. Giant Snowman 19:04, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is fair to keep the page of Vijay Mistry because it is very difficult to find all the information currently present on his page in another specific place. Fans of the band and of Vijay himself will find this incredibly useful. The page being of Vijay is not harming anyone. CallumRowe (talk) 20:07, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:INTERESTING is not a valid argument to keep an article. Giant Snowman 20:12, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You've made your point. What is the harm in the page being here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CallumRowe (talk • contribs) 20:18, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We are an encyclopedia, not a fansite. Giant Snowman 20:57, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:54, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:54, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The page contains encyclopedic information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CallumRowe (talk • contribs) 15:20, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You need to prove this person's notability through significant coverage in reliable sources. Giant Snowman 17:33, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. The best I can come up with is a profile in Drummer Magazine, and that's mostly an interview so primary, and doesn't provide much information on him anyway. The links in the article do not consitute significant coverage: the Yorkshire Evening Post article is a short blurb that doesn't say anything more than that he joined the Kaiser Chiefs after leaving Club Smith; the BBC links don't actually mention him specifically at all (the first is a short description of Club Smith for a music festival, the second only mentions the Kaiser Chiefs tangentially). If he did meet GNG, then he would potentially meet WP:BAND#6 for having been a member of the Kaiser Chiefs and Club Smith (the former clearly notable, the latter possibly squeaking by on WP:BAND#11). He does not meet WP:BAND#2: he hasn't had a single or album on a national music chart, a band he's a member of has. That's an important distinction. — Gwalla | Talk 21:01, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. I also blocked the creator since he named himself after the Norwegian version of Uncyclopedia. Geschichte (talk) 21:58, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Torgeir Tømmer

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

This article is unverifiable, made for (self-)promotion. it has no reliable sources. Author is constantly inserting references to facebook and youtube, which are not WP:reliable sources. WP:BLP calls for every article on living person to have at least one reliable source, but I can't find any. This person is simply not WP:Notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Vanjagenije (talk) 19:02, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:52, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:52, 18 June 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:44, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Will Interactive

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

Product listing. G11 declined, but I think it applies DGG ( talk ) 18:22, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- No independent sources found to meet with notability standards. It looks like spam or advertisement. No significant coverage in secondary sources found. G11 will suit here. A.Minkowiski^{_Lets t@lk} 18:53, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems like obvious advertising. The "woman-owned business" bit makes it look like its target audience is US government purchasers. Intothat darkness 18:54, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and per Intothatdarkness Nick-D (talk) 02:35, 22 June 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:44, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Viscosi

(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 a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:16, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:17, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:01, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFOOTBALL as he has only played college games in America Seasider91 (talk) 19:06, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- As per WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG since Jonathan Viscosi played only college games in USA plus non-notable. A.Minkowiski^{_Lets t@lk} 19:12, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No substantive evidence of notability, and very little reliable source coverage, provided. Also worth noting that with the exception of a couple of minor stylistic edits to another footballer this is effectively the only article its creator has ever worked on at all — so there's at least a mild possibility of a conflict of interest here as well. Bearcat (talk) 23:42, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements. Fenix down (talk) 09:43, 24 June 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) --Mdann52talk to me! 07:48, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comeau (Family)

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

Only source appears to be first-party, and no notability established. McDoob AU93 18:12, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comeau redirects there, meaning there is no disambiguation page yet despite numerous notable people with that name (and a code compiler, a historic building, and a community). So move to Comeau and reformat as a disambiguation page with those additions. The surname/family history can just be removed, or copied with attribution to Comeau (surname) if anyone thinks it's verifiable and possibly a notable family or name. postdlf (talk) 19:42, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be happy to see if moved to Comeau (surname) if that's seen as more appropriate. As the creator of this article I think there are enough Comeaus in North America interested in their genealogy to warrant a stub, both because they are a known Acadian family (notability) but also because this family's genealogy is unusually complete --Fkr (talk) 15:15, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia isn't a genealogy database. There are other places you can publish a genealogy of the Comeau family if that's what you want to do. Bearcat, also a genealogy buff with Acadian roots, but one who knows that Wikipedia isn't the correct place to publish my research (talk) 23:49, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are enough people on Wikipedia with this surname to justify a surname list, but an extended family genealogy isn't an appropriate use of that page — there are many more appropriate places on the web for that kind of thing than an encyclopedia. Repurpose per Postdlf. Bearcat (talk) 23:49, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't intend to publish "original research" and like Bearcat said, there are other places online to get similar information, but I did think it might be appropriate to have a page that could be expanded on by others, as this family has aggregated extensive work by genealogists which tends to be self-published, and therefore lacks the standard way to reference it. I don't see why Wikipedia/an encyclopedia shouldn't provide genealogical information, and I'm glad I can find Cohen_(surname) for example. I tried to provide a concise summary of what is known about the origins of one of the Acadian families. There are a few surnames (others include Dugas, Theriault, Melanson, Saulnier, Gaudet) which are notable for being part of the Acadian culture and I don't see why I shouldn't be able to find a reference to them as such on the world's encyclopedia. I wanted to start with the family that I knew, and also start this discussion for consideration. --Fkr (talk) 00:43, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Self-published sources are usually a problem. Please read through Wikipedia:Reliable sources to see what kinds of sources we accept. If you can't find any acceptable sources about this family, then we can't include that information here on Wikipedia, and you'll have to use some other website for it (of which there are many). postdlf (talk) 00:51, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- As noted, aggregated extensive work by genealogists which tends to be self-published, and therefore lacks the standard way to reference it is exactly the problem — Wikipedia's rules, in fact, explicitly prohibit the publication of original research that hasn't already been documented in reliable secondary sources. Believe me, I sympathize with your goal of making your genealogical research more widely available, but this just isn't the right place to do it. And, by the way, Cohen_(surname) isn't a family genealogy in any way, so it doesn't stand as proof that you're being treated differently than other similar topics. Bearcat (talk) 17:33, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative keep as a dab page. Bearian (talk) 17:17, 23 June 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:44, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

James X. Zhang

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

Individual's notability is not established. Single source appears to be write-up from the individual's employer, not a third-party, independent source. McDoob AU93 18:08, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Only content on article was copied from source with unknown copyright status. CombatWombat42 (talk) 18:20, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another editor has found more sources. None of them provide notability. CombatWombat42 (talk) 18:52, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The copyvio seems to have been removed already, so we can concentrate instead on notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:53, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seems somewhat promotional and like a violation of WP:GNG — Preceding unsigned comment added by CogitoErgoSum14 (talk • contribs)
DeleteI was asked for an opinion. I don't think there is sufficient notability at this point to meet WP:PROF. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)
Delete per DGG - whom I trust on issues involving WP:PROF. I can't see how he passes, but if he gets a higher appointment, I'd change my mind. Bearian (talk) 17:19, 23 June 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 Emerson Electric. (non-admin closure) --Mdann52talk to me! 07:48, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Therm-O-Disc

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

The article contains a claim to notability stating the company is the largest producer of bi-metal disc controls. However, i cannot find any remotely reliable sources to back this claim up. Google News turns up blank except for the companies own website, and a regular Google search turns up nothing but resellers and social media for the first 4-5 pages. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 18:03, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Same here, no any source found except its own website, non-notable. Purely fails under WP:PRODUCT. A.Minkowiski^{_Lets t@lk} 19:20, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Emerson Electric. While they are mentioned in over 1,000 patents, and have 79 non-patent hits at Google Scholar including a couple dealing with caselaw, there does not appear to be a whole lot in the way of more than incidental coverage. "Therm-O-Disc earns Carrier, Whirlpool quality awards". Appliance. 48.9 (September 1991) p.20, was a nice 100 words about them. There were the usual new product annoucement articles like Fritzenger, Dan. "Schottky diode key to tight temperature control." Design News 26 March 2001: p. 77; "Sensitive sensing". Chemistry and Industry .21 (1 November 2004) p. 13; and acquisition annoucements like "McGill Electrical now Therm-O-Disc entity" Appliance. 49.1 (January 1992): p. 19. They have satisfactory ~750 words each in the directories NAICS 334512 - Automatic Environmental Systems. Manufacturing & Distribution USA: Industry Analyses, Statistics and Leading Companies. ed. Arsen J. Darnay and Joyce P. Simkin. Vol. 2. 5th ed. Detroit: Gale, 2009. pp. 1288-1292; and NAICS 335314 - Relay and Industrial Control Manufacturing. Manufacturing & Distribution USA: Industry Analyses, Statistics and Leading Companies. ed. Arsen J. Darnay and Joyce P. Simkin. Vol. 2. 5th ed. Detroit: Gale, 2009. pp. 1388-1393. There was a short article in Japan-U.S. Business Report volume 362 (November 1999) dealing with an emerging market for their new safety switch. And there were things like "Therm-O-Disc gets $1M Ohio tech grant" TendersInfo News. (28 April 2010) and "St. Thomas losing plant" [St. Thomas Ontario]. Globe & Mail (Toronto, Canada). (15 October 1990), Business News Section, p. B6. Brief mentions of personnel changes like "Therm-O-Disc. (Places and Faces)". Engineered Systems. 19.12 (December 2002) p. 88; "Therm-O-Disc. (People On The Move)". Appliance Manufacturer. 50.8 (August 2002) p. 14; and "Therm-O-Disc, Incorporated". Appliance. 58.9 (September 2001) p. 23. Short, ~30 word count, about plant openings such as "Therm-O-Disc opens facility in China" Heating/Piping/Air Conditioning Engineering 75.1 (January 2003) p. 16, and "Therm-O-Disc opens in Hungary" Appliance 51.12 (December 1994) p. 11. Altogether there were 82 articles in magazines like ''Appliance and Engineered Systems, most of which seem to have been inspired by news releases from the company. A somewhat longer than usual article (447 words) said: A wealth of expertise in bimetal temperature controls and thermistors has given Therm-O-Disc, Mansfield, Ohio, a strong and well-established position in those areas. Babyak, Richard J. (1998). "Sense & Switch". Appliance Manufacturer. 1998 (July): 50., but it primarily dealt with Therm-O-Disc's rosy future. Therm-O-Disc got a nice send-up for taking care of employee's external stressors in Sammer. Joanne (2012). "Financial education--stress = improved productivity: making employees more money-savvy has a measurable return on investment". HRMagazine. 57 (6): 70–?.. And "Implementing Cryogenic Cooling On an Oven". Process Heating. 8.3 (April 2001) p. 45, was quite interesting, making an oven both a heating and cooling facility (I'd wished the article was longer.) --Bejnar (talk) 19:56, 18 June 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:43, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Loudwire Cage Match

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

An online fan voted tournament. Contains no third party coverage in reliable sources, all sources are primary so no notability established. STATic message me! 17:53, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Could not find any independent reliable source that mentioned the topic; doesn't meet notability requirements. Agyle (talk) 21:27, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no significant coverage found in independent sources on this subject; appears to fail WP:GNG. Gongshow talk 09:29, 24 June 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) 03:17, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

VR6 engine

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

This article is uncited and has been since 2007 (per the tag), it appears to be a questionably notable modifcation of a standard V6. If nothing else it should be merged into the V6 article. CombatWombat42 (talk) 17:41, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm no engineer, but this appears to differ from a standard V6 (transverse configuration, firing order etc) and is therefore a separately notable topic. Google returns more than 2 million hits, so even if only 1% of them are valid, it can easily be referenced. Philg88 ^♦talk 18:46, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are citations, although it could certainly use more and it may have a lot of original research. But, as Philg88 noted, the number of hits suggests this could be fixed. --McDoob AU93 19:44, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

snow keep with trout garnish Nomination appears to be WP:IDONTUNDERSTANDIT and nothing more. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:41, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Andy Dingley Please remember WP:NPA, I saw an article with a bunch of fanboy sources and didn't think they were worthy of wikipedia. Just becasue I don't agree with you dosn't mean i dont understand it or am incompetent, so please dont be an ass. CombatWombat42 (talk) 18:09, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember WP:RANDY. This sort of waste-of-time crappy nomination is one of the reasons why nothing improves any more. Half of those commenting here could probably have used such time to do something positive with this or a similar article, yet they have to waste time instead arguing simply to keep what we have. It's not as if it's a rare engine either. Look out of my front door and I'll see one, I even used to drive one myself. You must have done zero per WP:BEFORE before nominating this to remain quite so ignorant, then you dismiss those who are familiar with it as inconsequential fanboys. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:20, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You should consider adding sources instead of arguing with me... I can delete 95% of that article with the reason WP:BURDEN, WP:ORIGINAL, WP:V so get the hell off this deletion discussion, stop attacking ME, and defeat my arguments(by adding sources). CombatWombat42 (talk) 18:28, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So when you don't get to delete an article, you set out to delete 95% of them instead? Is that a theme to all of your editing? Do you find that particularly rewarding? Andy Dingley (talk) 21:34, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you're now carrying out your threat to delete the article piecemeal, and edit-warring to repeat this. WP:POINT much? Andy Dingley (talk) 14:42, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above - It should be cited better but that can be improved any day of the week, ~~Is the nom going to nominate Earth next ?~~ ... –Davey2010 • (talk) 01:29, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This must be a joke. I see "citation needed" but I can't see where and why those are needed (should the sentence "The Beetle RSi was the first production vehicle to use the 3.2 litre 24-valve VR6 engine" be proved for real??? That sentence should not be there at all, imho.). The vr6 isn't a further development of another engine, it's a complete different type. If your thinking was right, every type of engine is a further development of the first engine and every article should be merged in one only. So: V8, V6, V4, I4, I6, ... under the generic "internal combustion engine engine" article. Do what you want man, Wikipedia isn't a truthfully source because it's democratic and the Truth is never democratic. I save the page, before the mess up by TurboChargedChiliPepper, for myself. G-Bye :P

Keep: the VR6 engine is quite different from a V6. I can't see much in the way of content duplication there. OSX (talk • contributions) 00:44, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: At the time the VR6 was revolutionary and there are literally hundreds of sources here, I've added a few to be going on with to source some material removed by the AfD nominator and will look at the rest of the article when I can after it is kept. Black ~~Kite~~ kite (talk) 20:42, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Clearly a different animal than a standard V6. Passes GNG, as it is significantly covered by multiple pieces of independently published material. See, for example, Jason Cammisa, "The Six-Cylinder Survivor," Auomobile magazine, July 21, 2010. See also: Lewis Kingston, "VW's new 496bhp 3.0-litre VR6 engine," Autocar.co.uk/, May 9, 2013. See also: "VR6 Engine: A Staggering Technology," Karmakanix auto repair. See also: Jason Slu, "Volkswagen’s Next VR6 Engine Could be Twin Turbo," autoguide.com, Sept. 26, 2013. See also: WP:BEFORE. One of the worst nominations of the month, it would seem, copious sources abound in even a cursory search. If the flag for MORE SOURCES offends thee, time is better invested sourcing out a piece than running it through AfD. Carrite (talk) 15:30, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
comment This (and its fallout) has now rocked up at ANI. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:26, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Kudos to Carrite for finding excellent sources. Trouts to everyone who got combative. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:31, 24 June 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:43, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jabes Griffiths

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

Brief mentions as someone who carried the body of Abraham Lincoln aren't enough for a whole article. p b p 16:58, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No notability. CombatWombat42 (talk) 17:44, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Intothat darkness 17:58, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to an article where he's mentioned. Being peripherally involved in a notable event does not make one notable oneself. -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:23, 18 June 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:41, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lindsey Lowe

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

Delete, fails WP:ONEEVENT Hell in a Bucket (talk) 15:48, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Dosn't seem notable, fails WP:ONEEVENT CombatWombat42 (talk) 17:55, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - At most, she is known only for one event -- and it is even doubtful whether that event was notable. --Orlady (talk) 18:33, 18 June 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 05:58, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Qianhai

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

Article appears to be an advertisement for a development in western Shenzhen. Created mainly by User:Cli2014, who has not made any other edits to the encyclopedia aside from promoting Qianhai and asking why the article doesn't yet show up in a Google Search. The user was formerly called Qianhaisghzq but requested a name change. Additionally, he/she uploaded images to Wikipedia Commons which are official renderings/promotional maps produced by the Qianhai development authority. For these reasons, I suspect conflict of interest and perhaps a case of paid editing.

The article itself is riddled throughout with factual errors which serve to promote the development. For example:

Boasting of Qianhai's future connectivity when the rail system is fully built-out, without mentioning that many railway projects are merely proposals, and some, like the HK-SZ Western Express Line, have been shelved due to doubts about financial viability/ridership.

Dubious statements, like that Qianhai is within a "30-minute commuting radius of Hong Kong." Certainly not by the existing railway services. By car you could probably reach the border of Hong Kong, but not the city centre.

Statements about "Qianhai's leading industries" in the present tense, when the area is largely a muddy construction site at present. Some recent construction photos here.

A lot of purely speculative content about how great the development will be. Unreferenced speculation like "Qianhai will promote the development of software and information technology services, as well as facilitate the cooperation between mainland and Hong Kong telecom operators. With abundant manufacturing and logistics resources, Qianhai is also poised to become a thriving hub for online services such as e-commerce."

Reference in the present tense to buildings which do not exist. Names a number of firms that have "already moved in" to Qianhai Enterprise Dream Park, when in fact the first buildings are not projected to be ready for occupancy until December. References a news article in Chinese which does not support the claim.

Much of what isn't factually incorrect or unreferenced speculation is content from the official website. It's a convincing attempt at producing a genuine-looking article, but it's entirely promotional. Thanks, Citobun (talk) 14:57, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why this article brought me to wikipedia is because I felt like there are many misconceptions about Qianhai in Western media, and because it is a strategically significant area I felt like there was a need to clarify a few things about the current stage it is in as well as the positioning and planning for the city. There is very little English media coverage on what has happened in Qianhai for the past year, and there are many things that are very outdated. Now the reason why it seems promotional is because the city, as you said, is still under construction, which I mentioned in the article, so most of the material in the article is planned. However, the policies and plans for the industries were translated directly from the reports of the State Council which can be verified with the sources I provided.

* I believe the Leading Industries misconception can be fixed by changing it into future tense.

* About the speculative content you quoted, that quotation was also from the report from the State Council. I will provide a reference for that.

* About the Dream Park article, plans for the official move in for most firms is December, but the firms that were mentioned have actually moved in to the Dream Park. I will find a source which can verify this but I understand that it was originally unclear. Cli2014 (talk) 18:58, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have begun to edit the article to make it neutral and objective, and I would hugely appreciated it if interested volunteers could help me make it as objective and appropriately referenced as possible as that is what I am aiming for. Cli2014 (talk) 19:18, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Should you declare a conflict of interest? If not, how can you claim the images from the Qianhai authority to be your own work? Citobun (talk) 01:10, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I read Wikipedia's regulations more clearly I believe that I should. I am not an employee of Qianhai authorities, nor was I hired by them to write this page, however I do have personal connections who have spoken about how little there is on Qianhai in English. This led me to create this page, as I felt like there was important information that should be available in English for people everywhere to learn more about modern China. As well, they have granted me permission to use their images as my own. I will declare a conflict of interest asap, and thank you for the reminder. I should have done this earlier but was unfamiliar with Wikidepdia policies. I wish to present Qianhai in an objective light, without puffery and marketing, in order to uphold Wikipedia values. Cli2014 (talk) 05:45, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep It has many issues but that's not reason alone to delete and there seems enough there for an article once cleaned up, while it seems like a notable topic.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 19:34, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable topic. Needs some clean up but that's not a showstopper. Because the sources for this are official Chinese documents, it is not surprising that the language is overblown and promotional in tone - that's how such screeds are written. Philg88 ^♦talk 08:04, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable without question. Promotional language should be removed or reworded, but deletion is unwarranted. -Zanhe (talk) 19:28, 20 June 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 the good work that Dr. Blofeld did to the article - adding reliable sources and getting it up to layout standards. (Non-administrator closure.) LADY LOTUS • TALK 11:24, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Sowers

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

Completely unsourced and has no significant coverage, fails WP:GNG LADY LOTUS • TALK 14:15, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Very disappointing nomination from a fellow WP:Actors member. Whatever happened to the decency of asking a fellow editor to expand something (which is notable BTW)?♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:36, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's nothing personal Blo, I actually was shocked when I made the initial deletion request to see that you were the primary contributor, leaving a page completely unsourced didn't seem like something you would do. LADY LOTUS • TALK 16:37, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was created six years ago when sourcing wasn't a big thing back then for new stubs. You've made things even worse now by wrongly adding "not in source" tags to the article now. In google books Tag 1: Source 2, Tag 2: top source, Tag 3: top source. Please remove them and withdraw this.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:24, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because his name isn't in the sources given on his article so how is his role in what you were trying to reference verified? LADY LOTUS • TALK 17:51, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is. First one: Scott Sowers (Guard #2) etc. I'm not sure what you're looking at but the name is there, it might not being showing up in the snippets though.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:53, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Lady, given the recent additions in sourcing, I think we can all agree that this AfD can now be closed, as the article has enough in the way of sources to justify it's existence? - SchroCat (talk) 17:06, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I still am not convinced of his notability. Significant coverage is more than just mere mentions of him or just his name in an article. So yes while Blo has added quite a few sources, are any of them about him solely and not just a passing mention of him? He seems like an extra, has a lot of appearances that aren't memorable, is that worthy of his own article? LADY LOTUS • TALK 18:31, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jobbing actors can still be notable in their own right, I think (we even have one at FA, which goes to show you). Given the number and breadth of sources In this case I'm happy to see the article survive. - SchroCat (talk) 20:38, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lady, 80% of actors are the same, shall we delete Enzo Petito and Martin Miller (actor, born 1899) too because they mostly only had minor roles in films? Show me one source with documents either one in detail. They become notable for the number of notable films they had minor appearances and if applies their stage work and for how many different sources they're mentioned in, even if brief. In this guy's case, he's actually a notable stage actor (who founded his own theatre company and won the LA Dramalogue Award for Performance) and had a major role in a notable US series.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:32, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but we aren't talking about them (WP:OTHERSTUFF), we're talking about him. "Major role in a notable US series", which one? LADY LOTUS • TALK 19:42, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Get Hit and a minor recurring role in Law and Order, not to mention roles in numerous Academy Award winning films. Anyway it wouldn't matter whether he'd never appeared on TV or film, he'd be notable for his stage work in his own right anyway.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:08, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There were only 1 season of 6 episodes 7 minutes a piece. How major could that role have been? Grasping at straws. LADY LOTUS • TALK 20:15, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't need to grasp at straws as this doesn't stand a snowball in hell's chance of being deleted!.. Cracker: Mind Over Murder was a major ongoing role. His stage work if nothing else is notable, his role in productions like Streetcar Named Desire playing Stanley. His name is alongside the likes of John C. Reilly and Natasha Richardson here and he has more than a minor role in it which is discussed in numerous sources. He once played Stanley in a stage production and later John C. Reilly played the same role and he played Steve instead. He clearly meets guidelines. Sources like [13] wouldn't say what they do about him being an accomplished actor if he wasn't notable and as a major US publisher wouldn't publish his work if he wasn't good enough..♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:20, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Lots of sourcing, but in need of formatting and general wikification. At this point, should be kept under WP:SNOW. --McDoob AU93 19:48, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per sources found, SNOWKEEP should probably follow. –Davey2010 • (talk) 21:24, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - seems to have sufficient sources to meet notability standards. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:25, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep – It's a shame that the nominator didn't do her homework before adding this to AfD. Cassianto ^talk 08:29, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My homework? I like that this is all getting personal instead of just adding whether this should be kept or not. Nice. LADY LOTUS • TALK 11:16, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:40, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Locust (mainland Chinese tourist)

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

Delete and startt from scratch. While an article about the tensions and protests is welcome, this is an extremely one-sided POV article, starting from the biased title and finishing with some clear POV comments about "sycophantic pro-Chinese local politicians" (!) and "a political adviser who has evidently not travelled by bus or train for years" (!!). A neutral article based on sources (completely lacking here) like [14] may be worthwhile, but it should be started from sratch, with a neutral title and neutral contents, not a POV title with very POV contents, so it isn't useful or preferable to keep this article at all. Fram (talk) 13:10, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources at all. Clear NPOV issue. Written purely to disparage a group of people with no balance at all. Cowlibob (talk) 13:26, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
IAR Speedy Delete, as quickly as possible. It's a completely unsourced and one-sided attack on mainland Chinese tourists and a political attack on Hong Kong authorities. It's rather disturbing that it was created by an editor with such a long and respectable record here -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:33, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete No-independent reliable source found on the subject. Purely one sided POV article, no balance as it says ( majority of Hong Kong citizens dislike and resent the presence of so many mainland tourists in Hong Kong, their views have so far been ignored by the government) and also at many places. A.Minkowiski^{_Lets t@lk} 13:37, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No-independent reliable source found? What about CNN, International Business Times, China Daily etc. etc? But I agree that the article is unbalanced and its tone is unencyclopedic. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 14:25, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Those sources might support an article about the protests, but they would not support this attack on the "locusts" themselves and on the HK authorities -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:43, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just pointed out that there are reliable sources confirming use of this pejorative term in Hong Kong towards mainland Chinese tourists. The article as it stands now should be deleted, but I've expressed my opinion here so I won't do that. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 15:03, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, it seems we agree -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:10, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Highly POV and given the title never likely to be anything else. There is already an article on Tourism in Hong Kong and any NPOV info can be merged into that. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:09, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:10, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unsourced and coverage of the same issue exists in other articles. Daniel Case (talk) 15:20, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a pretty clear attack article. There's no sourced information, so there's nothing to merge. The concepts in this article – if they can be presented neutrally – can be discussed in Tourism in Hong Kong. There really isn't much reason for this article to exist. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:54, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Soapboxing. STSC (talk) 22:07, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to see that politically correct censorship is alive and well on Wikipedia. I am perfectly happy to footnote this article, as I have footnoted all my other articles on Wikipedia. The only reason that there are not footnotes yet is that I only created the article yesterday.

I am also perfectly happy to give the 'pluses' about mainland tourism, e.g. that the 'locusts' contribute to Hong Kong's economy, provided you give me time to add to this article instead of responding with a knee-jerk reaction. Indeed, I would be even happier if some of you critics helped me out in this respect and made a productive contribution. The mainland invasion is the biggest crisis in Hong Kong's history since the transfer of sovereignty in 1997, and I find it bizarre that it does not deserve an article of its own. How many of you know Hong Kong, by the way?

The article should also contain a reference to the Hong Kong Government's attempt to stifle local criticism of mainlanders by invoking a seldom-used law against racist remarks. The lawyers responded that this would be inappropriate, because the criticisms were made by one group of Chinese against another group of Chinese.

Djwilms (talk) 01:34, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's a difference between "politically correct censorship" and NPOV. I would expect someone with the autopatrolled and reviewer rights to recognize this. Chalk it up to a bias that you didn't realize you had, ignore that topic in the future, and avoid digging any deeper. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:36, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Djwilms: The main problem with your article is that it reads like it was written by an angry Hong Kong resident. See Wikipedia:LAWS, No. 14. We all should bear in mind this recommendation when adding new content. This is an encyclopedia, not a free forum to promote someone's frustration. Please, write in a neutral tone and don't forget to cite your sources. I believe that the topic is very important for better understanding of the current social situation in this part of the world. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 06:30, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article was indeed written by an angry Hong Kong resident, and I and many other Hong Kong residents are angry with good reason. However, now that I have let off steam, I am happy to help to move this article towards a more neutral stance. Having worked for many years as a senior administrator in the pre-1997 colonial Hong Kong government, I am used to arguing both sides of a question, and as I said earlier, am perfectly willing to do so. But it's ridiculous for the thought police to threaten to delete an article within hours of its first appearance, before its author even has time to draw breath for his next round of edits.

This is an issue of great local importance in Hong Kong, which affects the way of life of nearly all the territory's citizens, and it deserves a long and thoughtful article. I would have moved it in that direction anyway, had I been given the time to do so. Perhaps it should be called 'Hong Kong: Mainland Tourism Controversy' or something like that. At the same time, the entry for 'locust: mainland Chinese tourist' should remain under locust: disambiguation, as the term is in universal use in Hong Kong and deserves a reference. One of my Hong Kong Chinese friends was telling me yesterday that the term 'locust' goes back much further than two years, so there might be quite an interesting article to be written tracing the term's history. Indeed, my original aim was simply to provide a brief article to that effect, hence its title. Then I decided to expand it. Those of you who know my work on Wikipedia will realize that I am perfectly capable of writing a NPOV article, so long as I am given adequate time to do so. So can we please call off the lynch mob and discuss this issue rationally? It is very disconcerting to be mugged by a crowd of holier-than-thou puritans. We get quite enough of having our opinions censored by the local Chinese authorities in Hong Kong, without the Americans pitching in as well.

Djwilms (talk) 07:08, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're really not helping yourself here at all. And while I haven't checked the nationality of anyone else that commented here (and don't care what nationality they have either), I can assure you that I'm not an American (and not a puritan either). It would be best if you avoided this article and subject as the plague (pardon the pun), but if you insist on writing it, do it in your userspace, don't put extremely one-sided unsourced POV versions with very poor titles in the mainspace. Then ask some uninvolved, neutral, more detached editors to check the article and move it to the mainspace when they believe it to be acceptable. But it makes no sense to keep any of the history so far, it will only taint the article for the future. Fram (talk) 07:26, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Djwilms: You wrote an appalling and horribly-POV article, and now you're slagging off everyone who dares criticize it as censors, puritans and Americans! (Nationality is irrelevant, but for the record I'm a well-traveled Brit who has spent a lot of time in Asia, including HK). Just how on earth did you think we'd respond to your venting of your personal anger in an article in such an unacceptable way, eh? Fram's right, you're really not helping yourself with the way you're responding. I suggest you step back a bit, cool off a bit, and then review the way you have behaved here. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:02, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By all means. Perhaps we should all calm down a bit. And perhaps you might then like to consider the two practical suggestions I made in my last post for dealing with this article, instead of simply dismissing it as 'appalling'.

A good start might be for you all to read a couple of paragraphs I have extracted from Monday's International Business Times:

An “anti-locust” campaign by disgruntled Hong Kong residents upset with the influx of mainland Chinese tourists and visitors threatens the city’s tourism, much to the dismay of local officials.

Groups of protesters marched through the Tsim Sha Tsui district of Kowloon on Sunday, demanding that the Hong Kong government take measures to curb the numbers of mainland visitors in the autonomous territory. These visitors, who are dubbed “locusts” by their detractors, are accused of hogging the already congested city’s resources and overwhelming locals. A scuffle broke out at the beginning when counterdemonstrators also showed up, until police intervened.

My point is that this issue is a major concern in Hong Kong at present, and should be the subject of a Wikipedia article. I have suggested how this might be done. Remove one or two adjectives like 'sycophantic' from my original text, give it a new title, and quote pro-tourism sources as well, and I don't see why a lot of the original text can't stand.

Djwilms (talk) 09:36, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, it seems like a valid subject for an article. I'm just honestly not sure you're the best person to write it - not in your current mood and with your very strong viewpoint apparent (and your suggestion that you simply need to "remove one or two adjectives" etc only reinforces my opinion). If you really want to write it and are confident you can produce a good NPOV version, I'd follow Fram's suggestion that you write a new version in your user space and ask someone neutral to review it before moving it to main space - you could take whatever you think can be rescued from the current version as starting material. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:12, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad that you agree that the subject deserves an article. But you are probably right that I am not the best person to write it, and my enthusiasm for writing it has also waned anyway. Things move fast in Hong Kong, and the next big thing will be the deployment of the PLA to deal with rioting when the Occupy Central protest begins its planned disruptions, probably in July. If Chinese soldiers in riot gear appear on the streets of Hong Kong's business district, the problem of mainland tourism will disappear overnight. For the moment, however, resentment continues to grow.

I agree, now that I have calmed down, that my original article was provocative, but I think that it was an overreaction on the part of the administration to deal with it in the way it has been dealt with. I respond to rational argument when I feel that I am being treated fairly, and most of my anger came from the chilling and (in my view) wholly inappropriate speed with which this article was arraigned, tried, found guilty and condemned. No attempt was made to ask me first whether I was willing to try to fix its shortcomings. If an administrator had said that this was a legitimate subject for an article but that it had POV problems, I would have done my best to fix the problems. Instead, the Wikipedia judicial process sprang into action immediately. This is the first time that I have been hauled before the Inquisition, and it has been a most unpleasant encounter. I have a fairly thick skin, so it won't bother me for long. I will simply chalk it down to experience and go back to writing factual articles on medieval Nestorian bishops, which attract few readers and fewer critics; but I do wonder whether these heavy-handed procedures put off editors from non-Western cultures who shy away from direct confrontation as a way of solving problems. I have in mind a couple of Hong Kong Chinese friends, who had volunteered to collect some dates, facts and figures on mainland immigration for me to contribute to the article. I cannot now imagine them wanting to put their heads into the lion's mouth. I therefore hope that everyone who has commented on this article will consider whether there are better ways of dealing with this kind of problem.

Djwilms (talk) 09:15, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I appreciate all that - and we should bear in mind that you are a long-standing contributor with a great record. But on the other hand, articles we create are immediately presented to a worldwide audience of ~~millions~~ billions - and with so many enemies out there just looking for evidence of fallibility, it is vital that we do not bring the project into disrepute. And I can only honestly say that your initial version of this article is truly horrible - it absolutely is not fit for a respectable encyclopedia, not even for a minute. Were I an admin, which I was before I retired, I confess I would have done an IAR speedy delete on it. But you do make a good point that the chance to try again should be offered, and I now think an appropriate admin action would have been to move the article to your user space until there was something ready for article space. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:37, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Djwilms: You seem to be suggesting that this debate was triggered by some sort of official Wikipedia process. As you should know, this is not the case. Wikipedia has no "administration". It has administrators, but they do not delete articles out of hand. The nominator in this case happens to be an admin, but anybody could have nominated the article for deletion. You will note that every contributor to this debate (and anyone can contribute) has recommended the article be deleted; this is not any sort of inquisition or trial, but a legitimate discussion of the article by other editors. I can understand you feel aggrieved, since it's never pleasant having to defend an article you've created at Afd, but please don't suggest that this is any sort of overreaction. The article as it stands is completely unsourced and does appear to be little more than a POV attack on mainland Chinese visitors to Hong Kong. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:23, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per WP:SOAPBOX. Reliably sourced NPOV content can be included in a section in the Tourism in Hong Kong article. Philg88 ^♦talk 09:23, 22 June 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:38, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clay A. Griffith

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

no significant coverage. fails WP:GNG LADY LOTUS • TALK 12:42, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable. Article completely sourced to IMDb which is not reliable. No significant independent press coverage. Cowlibob (talk) 13:34, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete IMDb is not enough alone to establish an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:23, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He was nominated for "Excellence in Production Design for a Feature Film, Contemporary Films" in the Art Directors Guild awards[15] and he's mentioned in passing in a few reviews, interviews and articles on film[16][17][18][19], all of which offers some evidence of achievement and status, but I don't think that's enough to meet WP:CREATIVE, and with no in-depth coverage he fails WP:BASIC. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:32, 20 June 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) 03:16, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Becca Stevens (priest)

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

Notability concerns. Laun chba ller 12:06, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, subject meets WP:GNG: [20] (CBN News), [21] (NPR), [22] (NYTimes), [23] (Mountain View Mirror), [24] (The Tennessean). --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 14:41, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I'm not sure one source proves notablity. CombatWombat42 (talk) 18:14, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CombatWombat42, consider some of the sources linked above or below. Agyle (talk) 22:49, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If they were in the article I would consider them, right now they are links on some random talk page. So no, I am still of the opinion "weak delete", but it should be really really easy to change my mind. CombatWombat42 (talk) 13:51, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CombatWombat42, while the article and your vote have changed, for future reference, notability of a subject is independent of the article. WP:AFD says "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD", and "If you find that adequate sources do appear to exist, the fact that they are not yet present in the article is not a proper basis for a nomination." Agyle (talk) 18:52, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Several independent sources provide moderate/significant coverage of the subject, including Vejvančický's references (the NPR piece was a 3 part series), Church Times, Prism Magazine, a review of her memoir in Nashville City Paper, she was featured in the weekly PBS program Religion and Ethics in a piece about Thistle Farms, in a 2-minute ABC News piece, and has a bit of coverage in the book:

Joy Jordan-Lake (2007). Working Families: Navigating the Demands And Delights of Marriage, Parenting, And Career. WaterBrook. p. 57. ISBN 978-0-87788-199-5.

Stevens is also quoted in the following books:

Bill Gaither (7 February 2003). Heaven. Thomas Nelson Inc. p. 30. ISBN 978-1-4185-7733-9.
Terry R. Morehouse (2001). Fellow Travelers: Reflections on the Seasons of the Church Year. Kirk House Pub. ISBN 978-1-886513-28-0.

She wrote the following independently-published books:

Becca Stevens (2004). Sisters: Bible Study for Women - Finding Balance Leader's Guide: Loving God With Heart and Soul, and Mind and Strength. Abingdon Press. ISBN 978-0-687-47121-8.
Becca Stevens (2005). Sanctuary: Unexpected Places Where God Found Me. Abingdon Press. ISBN 978-0-687-49420-0.
Becca Stevens (2007). Hither and Yon: A Travel Guide for the Spiritual Journey. Abingdon Press. ISBN 978-0-687-49076-9.
Becca Stevens (2010). Walking Bible Study: The Path of Peace. Abingdon Press. ISBN 978-1-4267-3329-1.
Becca Stevens (2010). Walking Bible Study: The Path of Love. Abingdon Press. ISBN 978-1-4267-1174-9.
Becca Stevens (2010). Walking Bible Study: The Path of Justice. Abingdon Press. ISBN 978-1-4267-4608-6.
Becca Stevens (2010). Funeral for a Stranger: Thoughts on Life and Love. Abingdon Press. ISBN 978-1-4267-2234-9.
Becca Stevens; The Women of Magdalene (2010). Find Your Way Home: Words from the Street, Wisdom from the Heart. Abingdon Press. ISBN 978-1-4267-2253-0.
Becca Stevens (2012). The Gift of Compassion: A Guide to Helping Those Who Grieve. Abingdon Press. ISBN 978-1-4267-4234-7.
Becca Stevens (2013). Snake Oil: The Art of Healing and Truth-Telling. FaithWords. ISBN 978-1-4555-1907-1.
Becca Stevens (2014). The Way of Tea and Justice: Rescuing the World's Favorite Beverage from Its Violent History. FaithWords. ISBN 978-1-4555-1903-3.

She's also the author of numerous articles. She was named a "Champion of Change" at a 2011 White House ceremony (press release included in this article). Among other non-independent sources, Vanderbilt University maintains a collection of her writings and recordings, cited in Google Scholar; one of her publisher's has a bio posted online; and some universities carry articles before she is schedule to speak (e.g. Mercer University).

Launchballer, could you be more specific about your notability concerns about the subject? Agyle (talk) 22:49, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that's a lot of ~~boxes~~ references! My notability concerns were that the article had only one source and thus failed WP:GNG. If those references were added to the article, it would constitute a Heymann standard improvement and given the weak delete of CombatWombat42 we can probably get away with an WP:IAR withdrawal.--Laun chba ller 10:10, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY for the sources found. FWIW, I am an Episcopalian. Bearian (talk) 17:25, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Now well sourced and obvious notability. CombatWombat42 (talk) 17:30, 23 June 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:38, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Nenoiu

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

Delete for failing WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE. There are lots of footnotes to the article, but little in the way of actual coverage. Most simply say something like "Hair/Makeup: Anna Nenoiu". A few have Anna Nenoiu sharing a fashion "secret". The award mentioned was one of eleven silver medals that year and was shared by the team of four: "Ishi, Chris Hoy, Vanessa Taylor and Anna Nenoiu, GLOW, Fashion and Beauty". This article is slightly different from the one that was deleted in December 2011. --Bejnar (talk) 12:00, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The same reasons apply as in the last AfD discussion. In my opinion, this qualifies for speedy deeltion as a repost of an article deleted at a previous AfD, but experience indicates that some editors interpret that deletion criterion more narrowly than I do, so I am giving it the benefit of the doubt. It is also substantially promotional, putting it close to a speedy deletion for that reason. However, more fundamental is the lack of any evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. There has been an attempt to make the subject seem notable by inundating it with countless "references", but a check of those "references" reveals a string of largely promotional pages, most of whch barely mention Anna Nenoiu (many of them just give her name in credits, and don't have even one sentence about her). (Note: This is one of a number of articles which have been created and re-created by single-purpose accounts that have existed purely to post promotional articles about one PR company and its clients. The technique of posting dozens of trivial and unsuitable "references" to give the superficial appearance of notability to anyone who doesn't check them all is typical of experienced spammmers who have learnt from previous deletions.) JamesBWatson (talk) 13:25, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete No real coverage of the person, just mentions that they did someone else makeup or sharing secrets as the previous !vote indicated. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:37, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The cited references certainly provide verification that she exists, but are not substantive enough coverage about her to deem her notable enough for an article in an encyclopedia. Bearcat (talk) 23:54, 22 June 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) --Mdann52talk to me! 07:55, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why didn't you invest in Eastern Poland?

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

Article is written only for advertisement as per Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. Plus no independent source found to show notability except some self publishing sites. A.Minkowiski^{_Lets t@lk} 11:27, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No it is not. That is a program that was run in the past (till 2012), it has sources as it ia European Union run programme and is supported by a lot of sources from various reliable newspapers. Masti (talk) 11:41, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I agree with User:Masti. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 14:45, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The current revision of the article has nothing to do with WP(!):ADVERTISING. It is neutral, informative and well written. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 14:49, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Quite informattive and well supported by reliable sources. Poeticbent talk 18:07, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable, well-written, well-sourced article Shii (tock) 20:58, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Way too much excessive advocacy to be close to neutral. --Mr. Guye (talk) 01:54, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Please explain. Shii (tock) 10:43, 21 June 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. In terms of policy-based arguments, there was a clear consensus that coverage of the film did not reach our notability guidelines, e.g., WP:NF. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:37, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Global Eugenics: Using Medicine to Kill

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

PRODed as only referenced to imdb: PROD removed after another ref added. However this does not look reliable to me, and I can find nothing of any substance to establish notability of this film. TheLongTone (talk) 10:41, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable film made by controversial conspiracy theorist. No significant independent press coverage. You can watch the whole film here [the film itself is copyvio, link removed[. It's a propaganda film pushing his agenda. It consists of archived news clips of famous anchors to try to lend credibility and importance to the film cut with dubious supporters of his cause commenting on them. Cowlibob (talk) 12:35, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Found this: "In 2008, B.A. Brooks, a director specialized in meanwhile at The New York Film Academy in the creation of digital movies, launched his first exclusive documentary created with videos downloaded from YouTube, a technique that was used successfully in the documentary at hand, Global EUGENlCS – Using Medicine to Kill, from 2009" - in other words, the film is made up of copyvio, so I've removed the link to it's IMDB site (where you can see it). Dougweller (talk) 14:13, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment and reply to Cowlibob. Intertesting that you combine the 2 terms controversial conspiracy theorist. You should note that a theory is only a theory when it is just that. When a conspiracy is a fact then the correct term would be conspiracy fact. So therefore shouldn't you actually be referring to B.A. Brooks as a controversial conspiracy factualist and theorist as many of the points he has raised in this film have been acknowleged as fact? Ones that haven't could be referred to as possible theories. I find it highly interesting that you would refer to it as .... "It's a propaganda film pushing his agenda" Did you forget to add sonmething else to propaganda? Also I'd be interested to hear from you what you think his agenda is. (Starman005 (talk) 06:59, 21 June 2014 (UTC))[reply]
- Comment Such discussion isn't appropriate here, use your own talk pages please. Dougweller (talk) 07:07, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Just take two things from my above comment. Non notable and no significant independent press coverage. The rest is unsuitable/irrelevant for this discussion. Cowlibob (talk) 10:55, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable, no significant coverage. Dougweller (talk) 14:13, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I cannot find any WP:FRIND sources for this film. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:09, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:FRIND, as stated by LuckyLouie. Could not find any independent reviews or other coverage of this film. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:45, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete This film exists and can be downloaded, but as this piece has not received coverage in reliable sources, it fails WP:NF. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 20:13, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Having seen this film, knowing the content and people featured within. and knowing where it gets seen and the following and controversy it has attracted, i'd say it has definite notability. (Joecreation (talk) 09:04, 19 June 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Comment User:Joecreation, do you understand that we have definitions of notability? How does it meet the criteria at WP:MOVIE? Dougweller (talk) 11:00, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Joecreation, Wikipedia requires a film be spoken about and analyzed in reliable sources outside of Wikipedia. This film has not. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 14:18, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Schmidt, this film is spoken about in reliable sources, sites and analyzed outside Wikipedia. Just because they may be some sources you don't particularly like or copnsider to be conspiratorial (just because they have an alternative view to the official govt one) doesn't make them any less credible. It could be argued that what comes out of Alex Jones's mouth is a lot more credible than that of Bush or Obama. Ha, I think we know the answer there but 'm just using that as an example OK. THis is why I vote to Keep the film. No doubt here that the movie is notable. (Joecreation (talk) 08:51, 24 June 2014 (UTC))[reply]

KEEP - Vote to keep article. Has a strong underground following. Director B.A. Brooks highly notable in his field as the first or at the very least one of the few first to pioneer a certain type of film making. (Boss Reality (talk) 22:52, 19 June 2014 (UTC))[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Boss Reality (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:00, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Boss Reality, have you read any of the posts above? You seem to have ignored them. We use the word 'notability' in a very different way. Again, please read WP:MOVIE and explain how it satisfies those criteria. We don't take anyone's personal experience or knowledge into account. Dougweller (talk) 07:12, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Dougweller , I'm not asking you to take my personal experience or knowledge into account! The film is notable enough to have ebntry on Imdb,Doccumentry wire, Al free documentaries, Global Gulag, Amazon, BSI, American Built, TREZESTE, ANARCHIEL, Nasus, Organic Health Documenary Lirary and man many others. Also many other sites and all search engines birng up hundreds and hundreds of hits. I know that it must upset some Wikipedians that articles that challenge the accepted norm and comfort zone of aome people find their way here but that's the way it is. Notability is obvious. Status and impact too (Boss Reality (talk) 09:04, 23 June 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Sources, yes. Reliable, substantial & independant sources, No.TheLongTone (talk) 09:11, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Boss Reality Brief entries don't count. Entries where anyone can add their own material, eg IMDB, etc, also don't count. 'Obvious' doesn't mean anything either. Where is the significant discussion in sources that meet our criteria at WP:RS? Dougweller (talk) 12:29, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This one gets my vote for a couple of reasons stated here. This is in the same class and category of John Nada's controversial and groundbreaking documentary Wake Up Call and Dylan Avery's Loose Change. (Starman005 (talk) 06:46, 21 June 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Comment Same question - how does it meet our definition of notability? We have an article on Loose Change because it easily meets our criteria. We don't have on at Wake Up Call (and please understand that DAB pages are meant to link to articles). Dougweller (talk) 07:16, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Starman005... when Wake Up Call (film) does not have an article here and Loose Change does, all your comment does is draw further attention to this film failing our inclusion criteria. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 17:43, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to the above - Schmidt, I know both films very well. Yes we all know Loose Change is here on Wiki and a quick search will show that Wake Up Call is not. So ?? Your comment doesn't really make any sense. Just because something isn't up here on Wiki doesn't mean that it isn't notable. Wikipedia is something that's changing and evolving all the time. Please remember that!!! It may be up here one day. There are many things that are not on Wikipedia today that may be on Wikipedia tomorrow, next week, next month, next year or when ever. Your saying that just because Starman has included a film here that does not have an article so it draws attention to Global Eugenics failing is totally irrelevant and with respect I say that it carries no weight. Again I say that Wikipedia is something that is changing and evolving all the time. My friend, please keep this in mind. Thank you. (Brother Samson (talk) 02:59, 22 June 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Response to Samson: What you may have missed is that User:Starman005 used those two film in an WP:OSE argument, and that Dougweller and I both carefully explained that others thing on or not on Wikipedia is dependent upon coverage in independent reliable sources, and that Global Eugenics: Using Medicine to Kill lacks such coverage. It's mere existence or it once being sold on Amazon is not a notability criteria. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:44, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article for now, I remember when this film first came out. It caused a lot of waves with people or rather organizations that would rather not have such info discussed or put into a film, but this is not the time & place to talk about this. Brook's film was being sold via Amazon for a period of time but taken off. I know that some of the usual places one would see references to to this film don't review it now or anymore. There are possibly some reasons for this. Perhaps this film is way to controversial as it cuts too close to the core of certain issues. It's obvious that this film shines a bright light on the the industrial & pharmaceutical industries. As a result of this, Brook's film has been banned in some venues. The question whether the film is notable enough for Wikipedia could be answered by more research. There's not doubt in my mind that Brooks is notable. The film follows. (Brother Samson (talk) 02:33, 22 June 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Simply stating it's notable does not mean it is when we do not have independent reliable sources speaking toward it. If in your personally feel it can eventually be determined as notable and you'd like the article placed in a sandbox at User:Brother Samson/Global Eugenics: Using Medicine to Kill so you can do the "more research" you might feel others here have not, simple ask the deleting administrator to do so. If someone does write a suitable article on B.A. Brooks, it can be spoken of therein until the film is notable enough for a separate article. Best, Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:23, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In fact there seems to be vanishingly little on either the film or the director on the net, even in the fruitier conspiracy theory sites. Of course, this could be because the illuminati and the reverse vampires have nobbled all the sources, but given that Brooks is so desperate that he uses David Icke I very much doubt it.TheLongTone (talk) 18:15, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fairly clearly runs afoul of WP:NFILM when considering what would constitute proper sources who have recognized the notability of the film. I see no mainstream notice that would be required for such an article. Thus failing notability, the only course of action is to delete until such time that the film becomes famous. There are similar films that are famous enough to be notable for Wikipedia inclusion, but this is not one of them. jps (talk) 18:42, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A combination of low notability and WP:FRINGE topic means that we will never have sufficient independent sources to sustain a neutral article. bobrayner (talk) 22:24, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

bobrayner, I see you refer to this as FRINGE. As one member mentioned Loose Change here and quite rightly as a comparison. I'd just like to add that if Loose Change was put up instead of Global Eugenics last week or whenever. We'd see the same types and possbibly the same folks demanding that it be deleted and using terms like FRINGE and NOT NOTABLE. I've seen it time and time again. So I have to wonder sometimes about what the real agenda is. I really do. It's a pity that Loose Change is already on Wikipedia. I'd love to see it put up next week and then see all the demands for deletion and references to it being a fringe piece of rubbish and unotable. I'd say that excercise would be interesting. (Joecreation (talk) 08:58, 24 June 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Loose Change has been the subject of mainstream attention. Global Eugenics has not.TheLongTone (talk) 13:05, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- Joecreation, that is correct. Reading the article Loose Change (film series) I see it's been discuss in Vanity Fair. The Guardian newspaper, Salon.com, etc. It would easily survive an AfD as it is clearly notable by our criteria. Yet despite all the talk from you and the article criteria about sources, nothing like that has been found for this film. That neither of you can find any such sources speaks volumes. Dougweller (talk) 13:12, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks evidence of notability per WP criteria. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:00, 25 June 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 Nom Withdrawn. (non-admin closure). –Davey2010 • (talk) 21:27, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The New Andy Griffith Show

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

Notability is questionable and relies on a single source. StudiesWorld (talk) 09:37, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - if not independently notable, an alternative to deletion (WP:ATD) is to merge content to The Andy Griffith Show. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:40, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep, for heaven's sake It gets a thousand GBook hits; the fact that the article is at present based upon a single source is of no consequence. Mangoe (talk) 12:57, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This was a separate network TV series, not a part of The Andy Griffith Show. It received substantial news coverage at the time (for example, a Google search for <"New Andy Griffith Show" site:news.google.com> yields results from the limited Google News archive such as [25][26][27][28][29]), and it is covered in multiple book sources, two of which are already cited in the article. WP:OUTCOMES#Broadcast media and WP:TVSERIES note that national network TV series are normally notable, and there's no reason this one would not be. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:10, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Everybody else already made my points but I'd add that a lack of sources is a reason to improve the article, be bold, and add more sources, not in and of itself a reason to delete. Topic is clearly notable.Christopher Lotito (talk) 20:42, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw I hereby withdraw this nomination as it has been proven notable. I did do google searches before proposing this. But, I must have been using weird settings. StudiesWorld (talk) 21:10, 18 June 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 05:56, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Girls discography

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

This band apparently only released 1 single, and that one has no certificates, nor high chart positions. I doubt their "discography" deserve a separate article. Vanjagenije (talk) 09:20, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All the info is on Bob Girls, which already lists their single and video. Premature article creation: wait till they have enough releases that they can't be easily listed on the main article. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:35, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for Now They are just starting out and it looks like the creator of the page wants to be diligent. If the article wasn't made now it would be made in a few months. Keep the article for now and if nothing really becomes of them then delete the page. I just want to make sure we don't wipe out a page that can be built upon as time goes by. ₪RicknAsia₪ 05:20, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What you're saying is a typical example of WP:ATA#CRYSTAL. Vanjagenije (talk) 19:58, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for Now The group has just started and the info on the sales/charts will be added on when Gaon Chart released the rankings • 4minute_lover (talk) 17:04, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is no discography of significance to document. -- Whpq (talk) 11:12, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per Colapeninsula & Whpq comments. It's too early. Rockysmile11 (talk) 23:13, 23 June 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. ‑Scottywong | talk _ 20:50, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dao six-point circle

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

There are no reliable sources for this concept. Google search returns 0 hits for "Dao six points circle" ([[30]), and only 2 hits for "DAO 6-POINT CIRCLE". Vanjagenije (talk) 08:50, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Eightcirclestheorem (talk • contribs) 10:51, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. as per WP:NOR, may be it is original research because no independent published source for this Triangle are found. A.Minkowiski^{_Lets t@lk} 11:59, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am curious, do you, @A.Minkowiski: not consider Clark Kimberling's publication to be independent of "Cut the Knot"? Of course they all have to be based on the work of Dao Thanh Oai, as he is the one who discovered it. --Bejnar (talk) 12:32, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Probably original research, but we might find ourselves reinstating the article after a refereed publication presents this material. You can't say that about most original research posted to Wikipedia. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:39, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe this is NOT "original research". A moderately long discussion of the merits and demerits of this article is underway on this page, and the point is being made that the Encyclopedia of Triangle Centers is considered by mathematicians to be a reliable source, so that its appearance there is the "original research" and its appearance here, citing that, is not. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:47, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Should replace "Dao six-point circle" by "Dao six point circle"

I edited minor, and reference from two reliable sources, Please click: Cut-the-knot, Dao's Six Point Circle http://www.cut-the-knot.org/m/Geometry/CirclesTangentToMedians.shtml and please click: http://faculty.evansville.edu/ck6/encyclopedia/ETCPart4.html on item X(5569) = CENTER OF THE DAO 6-POINT CIRCLE, but I think should call named the article is : "Dao six point circle" , Other word: Should replace "Center of the Dao six points circle (triangle)" by "Dao six point circle"

Two reliable sources

I think Kimberling center is reliable sources, please see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclopedia_of_Triangle_Centers and http://mathworld.wolfram.com/KimberlingCenter.html

Example: Mathworld using only for Kimberling center for Moses circle, please see: http://mathworld.wolfram.com/MosesCircle.html

I think cut the knot also is reliable sources, please see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cut-the-Knot

Google search returns

Dear Mister Vanjagenije and every body

Thank to you very much, Now, there are two reliable sources for this concept, Google search returns 1 hits for "Dao six point circle" ([31]) on http://www.cut-the-knot.org/m/Geometry/CirclesTangentToMedians.shtml, and 1 hits for "DAO 6-POINT CIRCLE" on http://faculty.evansville.edu/ck6/encyclopedia/ETCPart4.html

Weak delete. The Kimberling/ETC reference is reliable for this sort of thing, but (like e.g. OEIS for integer sequences) not very selective: they will take pretty much anything that fits the definition of a triangle center and is correctly defined. So while I think that's enough to inoculate this against the charge of being OR, I don't think it counts for very much towards notability, and I don't think we want to replicate ETC by including articles on all 6000 or however many triangle centers they list. There seems to be nothing about this in the published mathematics literature; if there were I would find that more convincing. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:22, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder to what extent the mere fact that this involves a six-point circle might be considered as making it notable? To define a set of six points in a way that doesn't deliberately make them concyclic, and then to discover that --- lo and behold --- they are concyclic, seems like a substantial thing. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:51, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear David Eppstein,

Thank to You very much,you said true. In ETC has about 6000 triangle center, but has a few triangle centers named in honor of notability. Special, circles of triangle it honor of notability is very litte. I think, circles in triangle are very little. Example: Incircle and excircles of a triangle, circumcircle, Nine point circle, van Lamoen circle, Parry circle, Lester circle, Lemoine circle, Evan circle....

But now the proof of Dao six-point circle online in Cut the knot and some forum, and publish in Kimberling center, I think maybe has no magazine re-publish it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eightcirclestheorem (talk • contribs) 07:46, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article may be too technical for most readers to understand

Let $A_{c}$ be the center of the circle through $A$ and tangent to the C-median, define $A_{b},B_{a},B_{c},C_{a},C_{b}$ cyclically. Let $S_{ABC}$ = area of $\triangle ABC$ , $r$ = radius of the Dao six point circle, and $\omega$ = Brocard angle of ABC. Let $m_{a},m_{b},m_{c}$ are lengths of the medians of the triangle $\triangle ABC$ , $a,b,c$ are lengths of the sidelines $BC,CA,AB$ respectively, $X$ is the center of the Dao six point circle. Has somes properties following:

$r={\frac {m_{a}m_{b}m_{c}{\sqrt {b^{2}c^{2} c^{2}a^{2} a^{2}b^{2}}}}{342S_{ABC}^{2}}}$ is the calculation formula of the radius(lengths of radius) of the Dao six point circle, where $m_{a},m_{b},m_{c}$ are lengths of the medians(Median (geometry))of the triangle $\triangle ABC$ , $a,b,c$ are lengths of the sidelines $BC,CA,AB$ respectively. And $S_{ABC}$ = area of $\triangle ABC$

$|A_{b}B_{a}|=|B_{c}C_{b}|=|C_{a}A_{c}|={\frac {2m_{a}m_{b}m_{c}}{9S_{ABC}}}$ is lengths of two point $A_{b}$ to $B_{a}$ , or $B_{c}$ to $C_{b}$ or $A_{c}$ to $C_{a}$ (lengths of three segments: $|A_{b}B_{a}|,|B_{c}C_{b}|,|C_{a}A_{c}|$ )

$\angle A_{b}XB_{a}=\angle B_{c}XC_{a}=\angle C_{a}XA_{c}=\tan ^{-1}{\frac {a^{2} b^{2} c^{2}}{4S_{ABC}}}$ is the calculation formula angle $\angle A_{b}XB_{a},\angle B_{c}XC_{a},\angle C_{a}XA_{c}$

$\angle A_{b}B_{a}X=\angle B_{c}C_{b}X=\angle C_{a}A_{c}X={\frac {\pi }{2}}-\omega$ is the calculation formula angle $\angle A_{b}B_{a}X,\angle B_{c}C_{b}X,\angle C_{a}A_{c}X$ where $\omega$ = Brocard angle of ABC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eightcirclestheorem (talk • contribs) 08:12, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete. It seems to me that this subject is still below the threshold of notability required for inclusion in a general purpose encyclopedia. Although we do not have guidelines specific to concepts in geometry, we do have a notability guideline for numbers demanding that the subject of the article should also be the subject of a book chapter or journal article. It seems like this article should be held to the same standard. Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:18, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why Bevan circle appear in Mathworld, http://mathworld.wolfram.com/BevanCircle.html (no article for Bevan circle) but Dao six point circle can not appear in Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eightcirclestheorem (talk • contribs) 15:31, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with Slawomir Bialy and David Eppstein that this simply is not sufficiently notable for its own article. Dingo1729 (talk) 16:09, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of-course, due to lack of the independent sources and the importance, it doesn't have achieved any good coverage or any scientific attention. Its just like a general information of Geometrical topic and is not suitable for an alone article at the moment. A.Minkowiski^{_Lets t@lk} 17:35, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete' as not notable. I don't see any source that satisfies our sourcing requirements. It could be it's just too soon, and in a few months or years it will be picked up and covered in depth by more reliable sources, but for now delete.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 16:20, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 June 22. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 19:13, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 June 22. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 20:04, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ETC is the reliable sources: please click http://mathworld.wolfram.com/KimberlingCenter.html and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclopedia_of_Triangle_Centers , and all most article(about triangle) in Magazine Forum geometricorum and many another forum geometry reference from Kimberling center(Example please read the article in http://forumgeom.fau.edu/)

Dao six point circle is nice as the van Lamoen circle, please click http://mathworld.wolfram.com/vanLamoenCircle.html --Eightcirclestheorem (talk) 09:24, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I commented above, asking a question. It has been answered by others. This has received significant attention as per topic, and meets WP:GNG. --Bejnar (talk) 17:47, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, the only attention this has received are a single entry in the ETC and a discussion at Cut-the-knot. Is that what you mean when you say "significant attention", or are there some other sources you are able to glean from this discussion? Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:06, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One entry, or more entries, one article or more articles is also not important. I think, important is the Dao six-point circle is the special new and nice circle of a triangle.--Eightcirclestheorem (talk) 13:22, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are 3 triangle centers are center of the circle in 840 triangle centers

Dear David Eppstein and Sławomir Biały and Friends

David Eppstein wrote: "The Kimberling/ETC reference is reliable for this sort of thing, but (like e.g. OEIS for integer sequences) not very selective: they will take pretty much anything that fits the definition of a triangle center and is correctly defined. So while I think that's enough to inoculate this against the charge of being OR, I don't think it counts for very much towards notability, and I don't think we want to replicate ETC by including articles on all 6000 or however many triangle centers they list. There seems to be nothing about this in the published mathematics literature; if there were I would find that more convincing."

Sławomir Biały wrote: "It seems to me that this subject is still below the threshold of notability required for inclusion in a general purpose encyclopedia. Although we do not have guidelines specific to concepts in geometry, we do have a notability guideline for numbers demanding that the subject of the article should also be the subject of a book chapter or journal article. It seems like this article should be held to the same standard."

Keep I have just cheked ENCYCLOPEDIA OF TRIANGLE CENTERS part 4 http://faculty.evansville.edu/ck6/encyclopedia/ETCPart4.html, In 840 triangle centers, Using Ctrl F search returns 52 (--Eightcirclestheorem (talk) 05:44, 26 June 2014 (UTC)) hits for "the circle", And has only 3 triangle centers wich center of the circle(named after who discovered). So should keep Dao six-point circle --Eightcirclestheorem (talk) 01:25, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did not question that the subject appears in the Encyclopedia of Triangle Centers (ETC), nor obviously does David. The point is that this does not rise to the level of notability required for an encyclopedia article. As David points out, membership in the OEIS is not prima facie evidence of notability of an integer sequence; neither should membership in the ETC be prima facie evidence of notability of a triangle center. I don't see how repeating uncontested information here can rebut these votes. Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:48, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Has than ten articles for Lester circle, Lester circle also is the circle in a triangle. There are above ten article for van Lamoen circle, van Lamoen circle also is the circle in a triangle. Ten articles and more article then true to true(not new). If Encyclopedia of Triangle Centers (ETC) is reliable sources, then Dao six-point circle the new and nice circle in a triangle. Why you want delete it? If you said, it is not special? no, it is special. In 840 triangles center of ETC, part 4, there are only 3 circles named after who discovered!!! I think 840 item in part 4 of ETC have many many information as 4 books. --Eightcirclestheorem (talk) 13:05, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We have guidelines on notability in this project. Being "special" or "new" are irrelevant, and no one has commented on their newness and specialness besides you. Whether the ETC named it after somebody is also irrelevant. I also don't understand why you keep bringing up the Lester circle and van Lamoen circle. If these are the same thing as the Dao six point circle, then it would be better to rename the article to a more standard name rather than adopt a neologism. Is that what you mean? Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:34, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I mean: Lester circle, and van Lamoencircle also the circle in a triangle, and Dao six-point circle also is the circle in a triangle, I don't know why not keep Dao six point circle on Wikipedia? --Eightcirclestheorem (talk) 14:58, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so as an example, I would argue that the van Lamoen circle is notable, not because it is a circle in a triangle, nor because it is named after someone, but because it appears in an article published in the American Mathematical Monthly, as well as other secondary sources (ETC and mathworld). That's the sort of external coverage we would like to see. Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:17, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why you said: "Whether the ETC named it after somebody is also irrelevant", no, I think this is valid. Because Mister Kimberling Clack (who is expert in geometry, he is professor and Advisors: in Forum geometricorum http://forumgeom.fau.edu/editors.html, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clark_Kimberling) he know the Dao six point circle is new or old. Example: I posted problem xxxx in Crux or AMM, later there is someone research my problem, he write: "A synthetic proof Eighcirclesproblem theorem,". And example Droz-Farny posted a remarkable theorem, later Jean Luis Ayme research and write the paper with named after "...... Synthetic Droz-Farny theorem....". example "Floor van Lamoen" posted your circle problem on AMM, Later Nguyen Minh Ha write the paper with name "......van Lamoen theorem.....". I think named a problem after who discovered is normal — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eightcirclestheorem (talk • contribs) 15:20, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Right. But the situation you just described of someone publishing a paper with a problem solution does not appear to be what happened in the case of the subject of this discussion. If it appeared as the subject of a paper, that would be a stronger argument for inclusion. Sławomir Biały (talk) 16:22, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ETC is reliable source, its be using many time in for the article for triangle . Example: Click

http://forumgeom.fau.edu/FG2009volume9/FG2009Volume9.pdf Use Ctrl F returns 31 hits for Kimberling http://forumgeom.fau.edu/FG2010volume10/FG2010volume10.pdf , Use Ctrl F returns 27 hits for Kimberling, http://forumgeom.fau.edu/FG2011volume11/FGvolume11.pdf Use Ctrl F returns 27 hits for Kimberling . And magazine only publish original result, but dictionary can publish original or secondary result. --Eightcirclestheorem (talk) 15:49, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, ETC is a reliable source. STFW? Sławomir Biały (talk) 16:22, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gossard_perspector only used ETC and https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/Hyacinthos/conversations/topics/9666 . And I think if a result is nice and true, don't need come from a Journal. Journal usual for professionals, amateurs am also still have a nice result on forum(and reliable sourse as ETC,...). So wiki never posted nice result of amateurs? --Eightcirclestheorem (talk) 16:09, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a forum for amateur mathematics research. Sławomir Biały (talk) 16:22, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it be using for every body, don't need result of professionals. It can posted resut of amateur mathematics research which result true and nice. You think amateur mathematics have no nice result? And You think all problem posted on Magazines are nice? No, problem is nice or not itself. And You think Kimberling Clack, Peter Mosese is an amateur mathematics, Dao six point circle be checked by Kimberling Clack, Peter Moses, and many people, and be proved by two people on Forum and checked be Geogebra software, Mathematical software? --Eightcirclestheorem (talk) 17:05, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we publish notable results of amateur mathematicians. This needs to be evidenced by a number of sufficiently high quality secondary sources (a paper or book chapter, for instance). But we don't just publish any old result (even those by professional mathematicians). We have guidelines that help to objectively determine whether a result is notable in this sense. Sławomir Biały (talk) 17:46, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to You very much, have two proof at here but by Vietnamese: http://diendantoanhoc.net/forum/index.php?/topic/108993-đường-tròn-đào-thanh-oai/ . And you can view Dao six-point circle online at here: http://www.geogebratube.org/student/m129281 , and wiew at http://www.geogebratube.org/student/m129285 --Eightcirclestheorem (talk) 18:22, 26 June 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 2013 Singapore Cup. (non-admin closure) --Mdann52talk to me! 07:56, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2013 Singapore Cup knockout phase

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

Duplicate information of main article 2013 Singapore Cup. Any little non-duplicated information should be merged with main article and this page deleted. LRD NO (talk) 08:48, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following associated article for deletion as per above reasons:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. LRD NO (talk) 14:12, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both - no justification that these deserves their separate articles. Giant Snowman 19:00, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect both to 2013 Singapore Cup. No independent notability, but redirects are cheap. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:16, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - Content is already covered at 2013 Singapore Cup. unnecessary fork. Fenix down (talk) 09:42, 24 June 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:28, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjhi roti

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

There are no reliable sources to prove the WP:Notability. Google search returns only 9 hits ([32]). I excluded word "wikipedia" from the search, but some results are still Wikipdia mirrors. Vanjagenije (talk) 08:43, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unless it's also known under another name, I can find nothing beyond blogs and wikimirrors provinding coverage of this meal. Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:52, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep The article needs elaboration and must have a different name when it is clear that various religious groups have different names to such meals. Ascii0054 (talk) 11:09, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete This seems to me like a bit of WP:OR given the disparate traditions mentioned. Without some documentation there's no way to keep this article. Mangoe (talk) 13:12, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Needs sources and much more substance. Non-notable. Cowlibob (talk) 13:31, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 18 June 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:27, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Grigore Lăpușanu

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

I can see no indication that this individual was notable. I will address any possible objections one by one.

He was a state secretary, which is a civil-service position below the rank of minister. While government ministers are notable, state secretaries usually are not, and there's no indication his activity in that post made him notable.

The cited sources barely mention him, and certainly do not back up the claim that he was a party leader.

The uncited sources don't do much: first, they lack citations and page numbers. Second, they're from a local newspaper published for three years in the small provincial city of Zalău (some 10 miles from the man's birthplace) - not exactly sterling scholarly material.

Tellingly, the only obituary consists of a few lines written by his family. The man died in 2010, not 1930. Had he been at all notable, there would have been some press reaction; Romania does have several national and many regional newspapers. Instead, nothing. - Biruitorul ^Talk 01:42, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - He might not be a well known personality but I think the amount of publishing and public activities establishes his notability.--Codrin.B (talk) 14:56, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AUTHOR: "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors... The person has created... a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." In other words, notability isn't conferred by writing twenty or fifty or a hundred books - or, in the case of Lăpușanu, seven. Notability arises when third-party observers have written about those books. There is no evidence that is the case for Lăpușanu.

WP:POLITICIAN: "Politicians and judges who have held international, national or sub-national office... Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage." Again, not the case. The man never held any type of political (as opposed to civil-service) office. There is also zero retrievable or cited material to indicate he was a prominent figure within his political party.

WP:BASIC: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." Once again, no. A few scattered, rather trivial mentions, mainly in sub-par publications, do not constitute "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources".

In sum, there is no policy-based reason for keeping this article around. - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:36, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have to agree with the nom this looks like too much like a self-published biography by friends or family. Unsourced personal details (6'2" tall, names of his children). Also searched site:.ro and found some sources but nothing substantial. Admittedly I don't speak Romanian but using Google Translate. -- GreenC 16:22, 15 June 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:20, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The references are very weak. Does not prove that he is notable. Ascii0054 (talk) 09:28, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per GreenC ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 06:00, 19 June 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 05:55, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas-James Fisher

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

Fails WP:BIO. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 02:22, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As a photographer, he's put out a photobook. Ah, no -- a helpfully provided link takes us here, where we learn that he had just a one-nineteenth share in the book. His picture is described (on 9 June 2014) as "English: www.thomasjamesfisher.com". I took a look. The website bills him as a photographer, but it's completely blank. The Wayback Machine has earlier versions, e.g. this one; when they too aren't blank, they're descriptions of his nights out, etc. The problem seems less that there's little written about him than that there's little for anyone to write up. -- Hoary (talk) 13:46, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas-James Fisher, is not an american, he is english, the wiki entry on top is wrong, but in regards to his work, you can see his is IMDB listed http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0279811/ and also has featured on photgraphy 'artist' websites http://thenewsgayper.com/qd_gallery/thomas-james-fisher/ and featured in the UK magazine http://www.mascular.co.uk/Magazine/Issue7.Autumn2013/Mascular7 (if you scroll threw) and http://thenewsgayper.com/qd_gallery/thomas-james-fisher-2/. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki89london (talk • contribs) 20:51, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Sorry, unconstructive comment, but - OMG! This guy works in a Specsavers in Central London, and actually sold me my glasses last year. I recognised his name as it was so unusual. How SURREAL to see him popping up here... Mabalu (talk) 10:54, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On a more serious note, I think the notability is not there yet - he has SOME initial coverage and slight sources, but nowhere near enough yet, so for now, a regretful delete - sorry mate! (This really gets WEIRD when you've actually met the person...) Mabalu (talk) 11:32, 13 June 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:20, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Too soon for a biography. Wait for more coverage by reliable sources and recreate the page once his career has taken off. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:10, 18 June 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 SRM University. Consensus is that the content doesn't belong here, but a redirect to the parent university would be useful. —SpacemanSpiff 18:25, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SRM Film School

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

Can't find coverage reaching WP:CORP. j⚛e decker ^talk 05:16, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Promotional tone and multiple searches including news found nothing aside from those pressexposure links and a press release. Nothing else here to convince me to keep the article. SwisterTwister talk 20:25, 16 June 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:19, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable. Too reliant on one non-independent source. Cowlibob (talk) 10:47, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, and redirect to SRM University. I found this recycled press release at The Hindu, nothing at The Hindustani Times and only brief mentions like this one and this one at The Times of India. That coverage does not sound like India's one of the most famous Institution for films. --Bejnar (talk) 12:51, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree (as nom) that the redirect is a good idea. --j⚛e decker ^talk 16:24, 18 June 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. ‑Scottywong | speak _ 20:52, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

High Commission of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, London

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

fails WP:ORG. the article merely confirms its existence and embassies are not inherently notable. there is also no bilateral article to redirect to. LibStar (talk) 06:02, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:15, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:15, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:15, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 06:23, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- This is the embassy of a small nation. As a member of the Commonealth, it has a High Commission from the governement, not an embassy from the the head of state: that would be an embassy from the Queen to herself! We have Category:High Commissioners of the United Kingdom to Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, though the post seems to be a multiple one, covering 8 Eastern Caribbean States: see List of High Commissioners of the United Kingdom to Barbados. I do not know enough about the arrangement in the opposite direction to see what to do. It could be the answer is to redirect to the equivalent Barbadoes (or other) article, covering all the missions of the Associated States. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:58, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

being an embassy or high commission does not guarantee notability. There is also no significant coverage and therefore fails WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 16:32, 14 June 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:19, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - embassies and high commissions are not inherently notable. Like other organisations they must meet WP:ORGDEPTH to fulfil our inclusion criteria. This one does not. St★lwart¹¹¹ 08:21, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question. My research indicates that based on nominator's rationale the majority of a thousand of articles included within the category and subcategories of Category:Diplomatic missions should also be deleted. Can anyone speak to that? Is this article different or are you using this as a test run for future afd's? I understand my point borders on Wikipedia:Other stuff exists, but I think this is an issue that must be addressed considering there is a huge scheme of articles about missions with similar sourcing/coverage issues.
Perhaps the reason why all these articles are accepted on Wikipedia is because diplomatic missions are government administrative agencies and articles about the missions are simply spin-offs from the articles about the actual government. In the larger scheme of things it may just make more sense for each diplomatic mission to have a separate article. --Pink Bull 20:17, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually very simple. Over the years there have been efforts to basically "spam" Wikipedia with pages and pages and pages of information about non-notable buildings, simply because they have (even for a short period) housed or functioned as a diplomatic mission from one country to another. In some instances these became articles about the relationship itself - often useful information about notable subjects but nothing to do with the buildings themselves. Many (at AFD) have been merged to their respective x-x relations articles or have simple been deleted because information about the buildings have been included in the appropriate articles already. Many diplomatic missions have been established in very old buildings in very old parts of their respective cities and so are notable for their architecture. Some buildings were specially designed by award-winning architects from their respective countries. Some have been the focus of major events (like the Ecuadorian Embassy in London or the US Embassy in Tehran). Those missions are generally considered notable. But part of one floor in a large commercial office building in the middle of a CBD is not notable just because the tenant happens to be another country's department of foreign affairs. The relationships between countries are often notable (though sometimes not) but the buildings themselves are not inherently notable. St★lwart¹¹¹ 23:42, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I understood that the subject of the article is the diplomatic mission and the mission's physical location (even if it is in some forlorn basement) does not affect its notability. --Pink Bull 00:02, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And that is inevitably the problem. The article can't be about the mission's work - that content already exists (in most cases) in the x-x relations articles for the two countries in question. In this instance we're in the ridiculous situation of having no Saint Vincent and the Grenadines–United Kingdom relations article but we do have Category:Saint Vincent and the Grenadines–United Kingdom relations with 13 sub-categories and we have this silly article about a nondescript building in London. I'd be fine with a merge to a newly created "relations" article. Often in these discussions we try to make the distinction between the building and the institution. But we don't seem to have coverage allowing either of those things to meet WP:GNG. St★lwart¹¹¹ 06:32, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Saint Vincent and the Grenadines–United Kingdom relations. You know what? It really was ridiculous that we had an article for the building but not for the relationship itself which has a 300-year history. So I went ahead and created the article which now includes specific mention of this mission (both building and institution). There was (and still is) absolutely no reason to have this article. Strongly suggest a merge to the new article. St★lwart¹¹¹ 06:58, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR ‑Scottywong | soliloquize _ 20:55, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of EMC directives

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

This is not a list of EMC Directives. There is a substantive difference between Directives and Standards, and Wikipedia should not be spreading confusion by conflating the two. The list of EMC Directives is: 89/336/EEC, 2004/108/EC, and 2014/30/EU. I posit that this is not a list worthy of a Wikipedia page. What this page is, is an incomplete list of EMC standards; it would probably be better placed on a sister site intended for lists of references, rather than an encyclopaedic article. Mark1023 (talk) 13:06, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 06:24, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and change title - Nom gives a good reason to change the title but does not link to a policy that this article violates. It appears to contain useful information and is reasonably referenced. Change title to List of EMC Standards Nickmalik (talk) 18:31, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I must take issue with "reasonably referenced". The first section (CISPR standards) contains an unverified statement, then links to 11 standards. 1 is external, 2 "have issues", and the other 8 are non-existent (red). The next section has 16 links, 14 of them red. The next, 7 links, 6 red. The section on European emission standards has 11 links, all red. The section on European immunity standards has 8 red links to standards. Over all these sections, 47 out of 53 links are non-existent.

Regarding whether the page should be kept (with a title change), the (incomplete and apparently arbitrary) list of standards is not encyclopedic. (As an aside, the Latest list of EMC standards harmonised under the EMC Directive is around 140 standards.) To the extent that the standards have been selected, this selection then constitutes original research. It's also, confusing, out-of-date, and liable to mislead the reader. With apologies to Wolfgang_Pauli, it's not even wrong. Mark1023 (talk) 20:07, 15 June 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:19, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per policy Wikipedia is not a directory. --Bejnar (talk) 05:17, 27 June 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. SpinningSpark 19:38, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Timmins Square

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

NN 397,303 square ft, 70-store mall. Was PRODed, but PROD was removed. Epeefleche (talk) 06:34, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:55, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:55, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Is it non-notable like Les Galeries Chagnon (which you prodded)? I can't tell from your noms which are really non-notable.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:04, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Fails WP:GNG. Neither of the two references in the article are useful. ~~One (http://www.timminspress.com/2013/01/15/urban-planet-fills-zellers-void) is self-published.~~ The other (http://www.riocan.com/_bin/investor/property.cfm) is a broken link which gets you to a Cold Fusion error page. The riocan.com site itself is for a real estate investment trust, which I assume owns the mall (and would thus also be self-published). A google search failed to find any reliable independent sources which would establish notability. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:59, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've struck my Delete !vote, based on Paul Erik's comment below. My battle cry in these mall debates has been "local isn't good enough, we need national coverage". Paul has provided a citation in a national paper. I've still got a strong gut feeling that this just isn't encyclopedic (as Epeefleche points out, all of the events covered by these papers were completely mundane), but given that Erik met my stated requirement, it would be disingenuous to continue to fly the delete flag. I can't quite bring myself to say keep, but I'm at least willing to stand down from an explicit delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:51, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Timmins Daily Press is not "self-published" — it's the main daily newspaper in the city, owned by a major Canadian newspaper chain, and is a perfectly reliable source for our purposes. Granted, by itself it's not really enough to get a local shopping mall qualified as notable in an international encyclopedia, but it's not a "self published" source. (You are correct about RioCan, though.) This is an article that may have made perfect sense by the wikistandards of 2006, when it was first created — but by the wikistandards that pertain in 2014, a shopping mall requires far more than "it exists" as a notability claim, and far more than one article in the local daily for sourcing. Delete unless a better array of sourcing, and more compelling proof of notability than a mere list of its anchor tenants, can be located. User:Paul Erik has made significant improvements to the sourcing (bravo), so I'm now comfortable flipping to a keep. Bearcat (talk) 07:21, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the correction on timminspress; I have struck that part of my comment. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:50, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Just so the closer doesn't miss it (as it is in the midst of Bearcat's comment), I wanted to flag Bearcat's last sentence in his above comment to the closer. Epeefleche (talk) 04:28, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. FWIW, Timmins Daily Press appears to have a circulation of 6,000, and the city appears to have a population of 43,165. Epeefleche (talk) 08:24, 12 June 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:18, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Editors haven't mentioned that Google books shows that this mall was mentioned in the 1981 book, "Directory of major malls, listing the most important ...". As for riocan, [33] lists GLA and service area, [34] makes assertions about anchors, and [35] has a map and a list of the stores. Unscintillating (talk) 23:29, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Being mentioned in a directory does not make you notable. Directories are the canonical example of an indiscriminate source. And www.timminssquare.com is self-published. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:30, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A company's own website does not constitute evidence of that company's notability, and neither does inclusion in a directory. Those things certainly provide verification that the company exists, but they do not prove that the company merits coverage in an encyclopedia, as they do not constitute substantive coverage in independent sources. Bearcat (talk) 19:30, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Riocan could have more technical material that would help Wikipedia readers; such as acreage and parking spaces, and their definition of anchors includes Sportchek, which the article lists as having a 14,000 sqft footprint. Unscintillating (talk) 23:29, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Material was removed by the nominator from the article before and after the start of the AfD, [36], and [37]. Unscintillating (talk) 23:29, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

None of the content in question was referenced at all, nor was it in any way evidence of notability. So Epeefleche did absolutely nothing wrong. Bearcat (talk) 19:28, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please look at the first sentence.

Before:

'''Timmins Square''' is one of the largest shopping centres in [[Northeastern Ontario]].

After:

'''Timmins Square''' is a shopping centre in [[Northeastern Ontario]].

http://www.timminssquare.com/home/index.ch2 states, "With over 390,000 square feet of retail space, it is the largest centre within a radius of 200 km or more..."

Do you agree that the material that was removed was sourced and indicates a form of notability? Unscintillating (talk) 23:09, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, first, no, primary sources cannot demonstrate notability. And secondly, "one of the largest shopping malls in the region" is not a substantive claim of notability anyway — there are fewer than ten indoor shopping malls in the entire Northeastern Ontario region, and while I haven't found solid size stats for all of them at least three of those are larger than this one, and thus it ranks no better than fourth overall. And with that few shopping malls to actually compete with, even the smallest one would still technically be able to claim that it was "one of the largest" anyway. Doesn't sound like such a compelling notability claim anymore, does it? Bearcat (talk) 16:00, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I found to be more interesting the statement that this is the largest mall in a 200 km radius. In the www.icsc.org scale [38], the GLA size of this mall falls just below "regional mall". But when the nearest mall is more than 200 km away (and draws shoppers from 100 km away), on this parameter this mall is a "super-regional mall", which is the largest size listed. Unscintillating (talk) 03:08, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We can debate the significance of the material that was removed, but the point remains that sourced material was removed. Unscintillating (talk) 03:08, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of the diffs you pointed out included a single source at all. So no sourced material was removed — some unsourced material was, but there's a fairly big difference between sourced and unsourced. Bearcat (talk) 18:43, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The diffs include the permalinks that include the source I specified. The permalink in the left side of the diff is [39], and the permalink on the right side is [40]. Both permalinks contain the source I identified above, http://www.timminssquare.com/home/index.ch2 . Unscintillating (talk) 02:57, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an almost identical case, with the phrase, "...is one of the largest shopping centres in the Greater Victoria Area." But in this case, the editor added a Template:cn tag, [41]. Unscintillating (talk) 02:57, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. As the AfD notice states: "Feel free to edit the article, but the article must not be blanked ... until the discussion is closed." Epeefleche (talk) 02:11, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You conspicuously fail to provide a diff to the RS-sourced statement. Or is that because what was deleted was a wholly-unsourced claim? And such wholly-unsourced claims are, of course, subject to immediate removal per wp:v.

I assume you're not trying to mislead your fellow editors. But please take care -- your above edits could have that unintended effect. Epeefleche (talk) 04:03, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The words "conspicuously", "mislead", and "unintended effects" are charged words. These are your words. Unscintillating (talk) 03:08, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have documented a case of removal of sourced content. The fix is simple, stop removing content from articles that you claim, with a deletion nomination, to be worthless. Unscintillating (talk) 03:08, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As for your claim that I did not include a diff, the diff appears in the start of this section, above in the bolded Comment that begins this set of replies. The post is dated 23:29, 19 June 2014 (UTC). Unscintillating (talk) 03:08, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nominator withdrew the AfD nomination and a bot restored it, [42] and [43]. Unscintillating (talk) 23:29, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The bot seems to know a Delete when it sees one. Excellent work by the bot. Nom defers. Epeefleche (talk) 03:58, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – It's not the strongest, but in my view there is sufficient coverage in reliable third-party sources. Certainly it's not among the most notable malls in Canada, and much of the sourcing I added is from the local city paper. But I've been selective; there are a very large number of hits when I search "Timmins Square" (more than 1500 results in my library's database) and much of it appears to be just passing mentions in articles that are about something run-of-the-mill such as an event at the mall or a crime or similar. The ones I've added I've tried to be careful about finding the significant coverage that supports the material as per the guidelines at WP:MALLS#Structure for such articles. Beyond the local coverage, there is a fair amount of coverage at the regional level in Northern Ontario Business magazine, including an article that links economic development in the region to expansions and tenant changes at Timmins Square. I found a little coverage at a national level, in the National Post. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:56, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed -- what you alluded to -- that half the refs are to the local paper which (as was mentioned some time ago way above in this thread) has a circulation of 6,000 (and the city appears to have a population of 43,165). Per wp:AUD, that doesn't appear to be of much weight; indeed no weight at all, both because the media is local, and because it is extraordinarily low-circulation.

Similarly, another 40% of the refs (4) are to a trade monthly that serves the business community and covers business news in Northern Ontario; it's not regional media, but actually has an audience that is a certain distinct community (the business community) within that part of the province.

That's 90% of the refs. The lone remaining National Post article, on page C3 of that day's paper -- I can't see it, so I can't see it providing "substantial coverage" within the meaning of GNG. But I can tell it's not a front page article. And not even a front page article of a business section. Oh ... and I know one other thing. That the article is about 8 malls. This is one of this. So divide by 8. Paul -- perhaps you can tell us how many sentences in that article are devoted solely to this mall? Seriously, you're arguing that because 1/8th of one article that passes AUD exists ... it is notable?

Epee, I'm with you on the business magazine being a niche audience, but I'm uncomfortable with the idea that an article on page C3 can't be substantial coverage of something. Certainly, I would expect something on C3 to not be as important as something on C1, or A1 (not that these things mean much to me anymore, as I almost never even see the print edition of a newspaper these days) but I would hate to set a standard that says substantial coverage has to be on certain pages. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:21, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It could be substantial coverage. I simply can't tell one way or the other, however. And the fact that it is on page C3 prevents me from saying "it is on the cover page, so it looks like the article is signficant and substantial coverage of something, even if I can't see it. I can't make that assumption here. But to be clear -- when I said "I can't see it providing the substantial coverage necessary," the lead-in to that clause was that was because I can't see the article.

Added to that the fact that the article is about 8 malls (and this is only 1 of them) tends to dilute the significance of the ref by a factor of 8 (without knowing more). But perhaps we will be told that the article has a substantial number of sentences devoted to coverage of this one mall. Waiting to hear. For now, it's just 1/8th of the bare minimum we would need per wp:AUD, and lacks the necessary indicia of "substantial" coverage ... if this articles is what we come down to.Epeefleche (talk) 02:37, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An article topic does not have to be the sole subject of any given source, as long as there's a mix of sources and the article isn't relying solely on that one source. (For example, if a person wins a major award that gets them past WP:CREATIVE — e.g. a Grammy, a Juno or an Oscar — then one article in a reliable source which merely includes their name in a list of the winners is enough to start a keepable stub with. You still need additional coverage to support any content beyond the statement that they won the award, of course, but as long as the reference is a reliable one and properly supports the claim of notability, the fact that the source isn't exclusively about that person alone isn't a valid reason to delete the article.) Bearcat (talk) 18:38, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bearcat. For the purposes of meeting other "if you are this" notability criteria, such as "winner of major award" or "major league ballplayer," you are absolutely correct. But that's not how notability is being measured here. There is no "if you are this" non-GNG category of "mentioned, without even a single sentence devoted to it, in a national article, about 8 malls" (which even Paul agrees could be viewed as only 1/8th of such an article).

Here, in contrast, we are considering the topic under GNG and AUD. AUD knocks out the other limited-audience refs from satisfying GNG. And, in addition, AUD says we need at least one ref with a more appropriate larger audience. Which requirement -- if the national article were about this mall only -- the article might satisfy. It only gets us 1/8th of the way there, however. And we don't have 7 more similar articles. (btw, I looked and looked and could not find any other RS media covering the topic of the national article at all).

AUD says that: "The source's audience must also be considered. Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, national, or international source is necessary." 5 refs in the article are to a paper with circulation of 6,000, and 4 are to a monthly paper w/25,000 readers (average daily readership is therefore under 1,000).[44] So ... attention in 1/8th of a national article is not the requisite attention.

To the same conclusion, see WP:CORPDEPTH. "The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered."

This accords with the GNG requirement: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. 'Significant coverage' addresses the topic directly and in detail. We simply don't have that in the 1/8th of a national article that doesn't have even one sentence devoted to the mall. Epeefleche (talk) 00:35, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia, for the record, does not have any arbitrary specific size cutoffs that we apply to a newspaper's circulation to decide whether it counts as a reliable source or not — and neither do we deprecate "niche" publications like business trade magazines. A daily newspaper published by a national media chain in fact does count as a valid reliable source — it's certainly not enough to demonstrate the wikisuitability of a topic whose notability is predominantly local in nature if it's the only source you can provide, but it is a legitimate source within a mix of multiple sources. So too the trade mag — if Northern Ontario Business were the article's only source, that wouldn't be enough by itself, but it is an acceptable source within a mix of sources. Bearcat (talk) 18:38, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And all the refs in the article relate to "happens in every small non-notable mall in the world" amazingly mundane stuff -- The mall opened, it expanded, it had certain anchor tenants, it was owned by ..., its owner is based in ... , it was renovated. I have trouble seeing any of that as substantial coverage that is indicia of notability. Epeefleche (talk) 01:39, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And yet, those are precisely the types of things that WP:MALLS#Structure suggest that we cover in an article about a mall. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:13, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Structure and notability are two different things. Every non-notable mall .. if you were to write an article about it, would have the elements of "structure." If it were notable, though, there would be notable elements. Things like "the first mall in the Province," or "the largest mall in the Province," or "the highest-priced mall sale in the Province", or "the first/largest/highest-price sale in city X which is one of the largest cities in the country" ... In the U.S., for example, looking to notability criteria like that you would have hundreds of malls qualify - even with just that reference. But saying "I have a local paper with a circulation of 6,000 that said the mall was renovated" is amazingly mundane ... I would think, by contrast, a mall notable (in another sense, obviously) if no local paper ever reported anything on it. Epeefleche (talk) 02:44, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Supporting all the above, re those refs that contain trivial coverage, please see WP:CORPDEPTH: "The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability. Deep coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond routine announcements .... [W]orks carrying merely trivial coverage ... [include]: ... brief announcements of mergers or sales of part of the business, ... routine notices of the opening or closing of local ... shops, [or] ... quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources...."Epeefleche (talk) 02:57, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Paul -- I've asked above, and you've edited this page since then, so perhaps I've missed it. Can you tell us how many sentences in that lone article are devoted solely to this mall? I'm focused on that because the article is about 8 malls. Thanks. Epeefleche (talk) 02:44, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The National Post article that I cited is about a major financial deal that involves eight Canadian malls. I completely agree with you, Epeefleche, that this one national news article is not sufficient to support the notability of this one mall. But I think that this source once it is considered in the context of the other sources and their depth, the coverage is enough for WP:GNG notability. (I suspect that you and I are going to end up having to agree to disagree about this broader question, just as we also disagree about the necessity of "first", "largest", "highest price" etc as being a requirement to keep such an article.) Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:16, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Paul -- Can you tell us how many sentences in that lone article are devoted solely to this mall? I'm focused on that because the article is about 8 malls, and this is only one of them. For all I know, the article may only devote two or three passing references to this particular mall. wp:AUD bears on this, as does wp:GNG ("Significant coverage"). I know you have a view of this source -- but since it is key to satisfying AUD and GNG, please allow the rest of us to evaluate it with more information than you've shared. I've already posed this simple request twice before. Thanks. Epeefleche (talk) 02:21, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Paul, Epeefleche has asked you a very straightforward question several times, and you have failed to respond. I'm confused about this. You have found a citation which is not directly accessible by the other people in this conversation. Since you are the only one with direct access to this information, you really owe it the other participants to answer questions about it. I would appreciate if you would do so. Thanks. -- RoySmith (talk) 04:03, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How many "sentences"?! I wasn't intending to be indirect or evasive. "None", I suppose, is the answer..? The entire article is about the eight malls and the financial deal associated with them, as I said. Epeefleche characterizes this as "1/8th of one article", which is reasonable, even though I don't tend to count up sources in this kind of way. For whatever it's worth (a little, not much perhaps) while I was looking up that article I also found a few sentences about the mall in a Toronto Star article. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 12:20, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based on Paul Erik's comment above. I've gone back and forth on this, and gave Paul the benefit of the doubt when he said he found a reference in a national publication which establishes notability. But, based on his answer above (for which I thank him), I must conclude that the weight of the references found do not meet WP:N and WP:GNG. Since I don't have direct access to the article, I have to go on Paul's description of the contents. From that, I conclude that this article is not about this mall, but about a real estate deal which just happened to include this mall. That's insufficient. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:14, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Given what we've now learned about the ref, the article still fails to meet wp:AUD and wp:GNG. Epeefleche (talk) 00:15, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per Paul and Bearcat. Article meets both WP:AUD and WP:GNG. The mall has received coverage in both regional and national media. There does not appear to be any basis for the "niche" media excuse to dismiss the regional coverage. The Financial Post (the business section of the National Post) is one of the country's main business news media outlets - they typically do not cover the sale of minor plazas and malls. While the Post article is on the real estate deal, it's the properties themselves which collectively made that deal worth covering in one of Canada's main business media outlets. WP:GNG quite explicitly states that the coverage must be "more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material" - so the focus on the larger deal does not mean that WP:GNG has not been met (and the coverage certainly isn't trivial since the mall was the subject of the deal). I think WP:AUD and WP:GNG are being construed by some way too narrowly. As an aside, 6,000 sounds to me like a pretty healthy circulation for a newspaper these days in a town of approximately 45,000. Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:53, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into new article about neighborhood Mountjoy, Ontario (which currently redirects to Neighbourhoods in Timmins#Mountjoy).Perhaps this is a fair compromise between opposing factions. --Pink Bull 19:27, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Generally a merge is not seen as a "fair compromise" for persons advocating keeping the article. I'm also not sure that we are "factions". If merged (and I am not advocating that solution), given the mall seems to serve a much larger area than just the neighbourhood, it makes a lot more sense that to merge it with the Timmins article, than to effectively rename this article as Mountjoy, Ontario.Skeezix1000 (talk) 22:54, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It wouldn't be just a rename as content from Neighbourhoods in Timmins#Mountjoy would also be merged into Mountjoy, Ontario. I don't oppose a merger into Timmins as a seperate section or merged into Timmins#Economy.--Pink Bull 00:15, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that reliable sources associate this mall much with Mountjoy. There is the name itself (Timmins), and the fact that it is the dominant mall in a 100 km radius. IMO, appeasement is simply going to create more demands on the time of AfD volunteers, instead of moving to all of the editors being involved in finding sources. I'm not opposed to a refocus, for example Cityscape of Timmins would have room for both the neighbourhoods and the 101 Mall. I think that any such decisions should come from the content contributors, and not AfD specialists. Unscintillating (talk) 02:46, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This initially looked like a case similar to Sumter Mall but without the local press to provide WP:GNG notability. As such it would have been a case of WP:Systemic bias. But thanks to Paul Erik showing how to use newspaper databases, we now know that not only is there a strong local press, the mall is regularly covered by a regional business magazine (for example, Timmins native runs campeau mall. (1988). Northern Ontario Business, 8(10), 44-C44. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/210496261 ), and attracts the attention of a real estate brokerage in Toronto with a national knowledge of "large dominant shopping centres." (National Post, May 19, 1999). Here is a short article from the last English-language newspaper in Montreal: Campeau sells shopping centre. (1990, Apr 26). The Gazette Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/431945082 . newspapers.com shows 5 hits in 1976, which is when the mall opened, if anyone can access that database. Unscintillating (talk) 02:46, 27 June 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) 03:14, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Majuba Day

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

I can't find any evidence that this an annual afrikaner celebration day. If it is celebrated in Orania then it is too local to be notable Gbawden (talk) 08:49, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's the type of thing that only hardcore survivors of the AWB (all 4 of them? LOL) would even be aware of. It is not "celebrated" in any publically noticeable way. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:01, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If all we needed to consider were the current status of the day, I would tend to agree with the above - it still seems to celebrated but only by a small number of nostalgists yearning for past glories. However, notability is not temporary: the day was one of major celebration for Afrikaners for two decades after the original victory, and the fact that a major British victory during the Second Boer War took place on Majuba Day seems to have been fraught with symbolism for both sides. I have rewritten the article accordingly. PWilkinson (talk) 18:56, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I can see no need to removing it. It was a historic day of celebration in South Africa and references do exist. The "The day is still, however, celebrated by some Afrikaners." statement will however need to be referenced or removed. If we delete this article just because it is not currently being celebrated by a large majority, then we might as well delete Emancipation Day and numerous others for the same reason. --NJR_ZA (talk) 14:23, 17 June 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:18, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Now that it has been rewritten in the proper historical context. I am changing my !vote to keep. I will try to find evidence of present day commemoration. Note that it was officially commemorated in the ZAR, not South Africa. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:47, 18 June 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:26, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Curtin

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

Fails WP:NSPORT and hence the general notability guidelines. The subject of the article seems to have one U.S. national title in a particular format of archery, and has also placed highly in various junior tournaments. Although the creator of the article (who has made no edits to any other pages) describes Curtin as "a US Olympic Champion" (?), these accomplishments seem to have been the peak of his career. Archery is far from a major sport, and this is reflected in the (complete) lack of sources actually covering the subject of the article (rather than merely mentioning him). IgnorantArmies 11:53, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with the above arguments. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 17:26, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 10 June 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:17, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The double gold olympic champion seems to be puffery as the events that contribute to it are not olympic events, nor is there any evidence the individual was ever a member of an olympic team. I tried checking the FITA athlete database and could not find an entry for him. This would suggest that he has not participated in competitions at the highest level of his sport. -- Whpq (talk) 11:23, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. All titles were at junior events.204.126.132.231 (talk) 16:06, 24 June 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 Kachwaha#Rulers. (non-admin closure) --Mdann52talk to me! 08:00, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kacchwaha King of Amber

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

The article has a strong POV, no sources, and would require a complete rewrite to make it encyclopedic enough for inclusion. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:00, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (perhaps with REname or temporarily redirect). We have a mess here: Amber is piped to Amer, India. That has a link to House of Kachwaha, which is itself a redirect to Kachwaha, which is an article on this Rajput caste. Here we have an issue of spelling Kacchwaha or Kachwaha. That article has a section on rulers of Jaipur State, which is subject to a merge request, becasue the first ruler apparently had a differnet capital or a different name for a state. What we need is a list article for the rulers. I would suggest that this should be Rajahs of Jaipur or Rulers of Jaipur, but this article might make a stub from which to start. In UK, there is an article on every barony, and even baronetcy, though these were mere titles and conferred no sovereignty. By analogy, there should be an article on the princely dynasty of each Indian princely state. Some of the rulers will ne notable and have (or need) their own article; others will not. Peterkingiron (talk) 08:43, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Kachwaha#Rulers for the time being, until an actual article can be written. The History of Jaipur currently starts with the founding of the city in 1727 by Maharaja Sawai Jai Singh II, a Kachwaha Rajput. The history section of the Jaipur State article starts with the Dhundhar state founded in 1093 by Dūlaha Rāya, a Kachwaha Rajput. But the Amer, India article pushes it back to around 1037 A.D. when Amber was conquered by the Kachwaha clan of Rajputs. All with a relative lack of citation. --Bejnar (talk) 04:43, 15 June 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:17, 18 June 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:26, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald Gan Ledesma

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

Non-notable as either a martial artists or director. References in the text are very sparse and do nothing to support notability or the content. Peter Rehse (talk) 16:26, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 16:26, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No coverage to meet GNG and nothing to indicate he's a notable martial artist. 109.201.154.178 (talk) 20:01, 12 June 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:16, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks the coverage necessary to meet WP:GNG and doesn't appear to meet the notability criteria for either martial artists or actors. Papaursa (talk) 19:04, 22 June 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) --Mdann52talk to me! 08:01, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Leron Black

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

WP:TOOSOON. Doesn't qualify for notability under WP:NHSPHSATH as, with the exception of the two espn articles, all the non-routine coverage is local or school-specific publications. This doesn't count as "substantial and prolonged coverage." Hasn't played a single college game, so can't qualify under WP:NCOLLATH. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 17:14, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Multiple in-depth coverage in reliable sources such as ESPN, with articles devoted to him; he meets the general notability guideline.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:29, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that two articles by the same author qualify as substantial and prolonged coverage. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:16, 12 June 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:16, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't see significant coverage. A couple articles when he de-committed from Baylor and a couple when he signed with Illinois - all very short. Rikster2 (talk) 18:46, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the nontrivial coverage in this article^WebCite (September 17, 2012) and this article^WebCite (January 3, 2013) in ESPN, as well as this article from CBSSports.com^WebCite (September 1, 2013), this article^WebCite from The News-Gazette (September 1, 2013), and this article^{Internet Archive} from WHBQ-TV (March 21, 2014).
The sources span roughly two years, from September 2012 to March 2014, which addresses the concern about the WP:PERSISTENCE of the coverage. The News-Gazette article provides 488 words of coverage about the subject, which addresses the significant coverage concern. The article should be kept because Leron Black passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Cunard (talk) 04:39, 26 June 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 HeroCraft. (non-admin closure) --Mdann52talk to me! 08:01, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Games developed and published by HeroCraft

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

Just a list of game by a rather obscure developer. None of the games are notable and many listed are just direct extern links to where the games can be downloaded — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 18:44, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually some of these games are notable and have their own Wikipedia articles already. But they were made by other companies. Their official website shows games and trailers of the start of games that don't list who created the original ones, so I'm thinking they are just pirating other people's stuff. I have emailed one of the companies whose stuff I see them taking credit for, so see if they take action. Dream Focus 08:26, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into HeroCraft - Unecessary spinout. Mention notable games in the company's article. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:44, 11 June 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:16, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, no redirect to HeroCraft per Salvidrim!. Not a likely search term. --Bejnar (talk) 13:08, 18 June 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 18:29, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjib Kumar Roy

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

Article about a journalist that was PRODed by me, deleted, recreated, speedied as G11 and re-created again in its present form. Despite claims of being involved with the Edward R. Murrow journalism program, the subject is not a Press Fellow, which would be notable in and of itself. The rest of the article is essentially a CV, and all sources I can find are self-generated or stories by the subject, not coverage of him. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:18, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There seem to be two independent reliable sources cited in the article that the nom. missed, the source at the Andaman Chronicle is not by him, it indicates that he was a judge at the charity "Ad campaign contest" and that he was the editor of the newspaper Andaman Sheekha. The Echo of India newspaper article about his music is also not by him. The website for the office of the Registrar of Newspapers for India is down right now, so I can't check that. FreeRangeFrog says that he is not a Edward R. Murrow Fellow as claimed by the article, where can I find a list? --Bejnar (talk) 01:05, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Bejnar: The list of prior ERM Press fellows is here. Being associated with the lesser aspects of the secondary programs does not confer notability, nor does participating in the IVLP program, through which hundreds of people go through ever year. I'm sure all that looks good in a resume, but there is no significant coverage secondary of the subject anywhere that I can find. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:23, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is coverage of him in independent reliable sources, but I agree I don't think that the coverage is significant (as it is usually measured on Wikipedia). I suspect that this is because he is in the Andaman Islands, which is the exact opposite of mainstream. Take a look at Sanjay Kumar, IAS, Sakshi Mittal, Bishnu Pada Ray, and Kalluri Sushila. It looks as though we just don't have access to good sources from there, or equally likely that there aren't many. --Bejnar (talk) 21:48, 17 June 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:27, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not look very convincing at the point of notability and looks like (self) promo. The Banner talk 23:37, 19 June 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:SOFTDELETE j⚛e decker ^talk 00:24, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mariah Copeland

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

Page fails per the standards established by the Wikipedia Soap Project. Article fails to supply notability in a real-world context for a fictional character. Placement at The Young and the Restless characters (2014) is more than suitable, which page was, on a basis, copy and pasted from. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 16:33, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 07:08, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete - {{db-inc}} candidate. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:54, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Inqwise

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

Failed to find enough coverage in reliable sources. A search mainly finds unreliable sources and press releases. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 06:07, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No-independent source found. The sources like this and this are not independent sources and do not provide the significant coverage required by the notability standard as per WP:COMPANY. Article is written like an advertisement A.Minkowiski^{_Lets t@lk} 06:38, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. A.Minkowiski^{_Lets t@lk} 06:39, 18 June 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:24, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Singapore EPL Fan Club League

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

Non-notable league as per WP:FOOTY. LRD NO (talk) 05:59, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following associated article for deletion:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. A.Minkowiski^{_Lets t@lk} 06:07, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Since EPL Fan club league has participated in

1. Newcastle United Supporters Club Singapore
2. Singapore Chelsea Supporters Club
3. United 4 United
4. Arsenal Singapore Supporters Club
5. Singapore Spurs Supporters' Club

are national level of the league structure and are assumed to meet WP:FOOTYN as sources say this and this. A.Minkowiski^{_Lets t@lk} 06:20, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Fan Club League is not affiliated to the Football Association of Singapore in any way and is not part of the national league structure. LRD NO (talk) 06:26, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. @LRD NO: Please see the news about Singapore EPL Fan Club Leagues at The Straits Times that shows good coverage of the EPL Leagues. A.Minkowiski^{_Lets t@lk} 06:56, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What I see is the wide coverage of Premier League clubs, not the fan clubs/league. Besides, coverage is not the determining factor in establishing WP:FOOTYN. The Fan Club League is akin to the Sunday league football you get in England, and is not associated with the governing football body (FAS) nor part of the football pyramid. Regarding "assumed to meet WP:FOOTYN", WP:FOOTYN clearly states assumed non-notability unless it meets broader WP:N criteria.LRD NO (talk) 07:08, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Aside from the soft story at http://news.asiaone.com there's nothing to support notability. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:48, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this fan club article for failing WP:ORG. It currently has only weak coverage in reliable sources... such as Straits Times (reprinted in the aforementioned Asia One). Sourced mentions might be included elsewhere, but until this Singapore club receives more coverage, it fails WP:ORG. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 07:31, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable fan league. Not part of the Singaporean football pyramid in anyway, so fails WP:FOOTYN. Commets above regarding FOOTYN pass are rroneous and based on a misunderstanding of that agreed consensus. Fenix down (talk) 12:25, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As a Singaporean who follows local football, I have never seen this league covered in detail (that is, beyond fixtures and results) in reliable sources. --Hildanknight (talk) 13:19, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable. Giant Snowman 18:59, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable amateur/social/kickabout competition. Strait Times link above clearly shows coverage of the Premier League itself, not this league for fans -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:50, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's an amateur competition that has not received enough coverage in reliable sources. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:27, 20 June 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:24, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New York City derbies

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

There are a series of article that have been added (Hudson River derby, New York City derbies) and edited (New York Red Bulls) to refer to a history and _possible_ derby between the teams that does not exist yet. There are no credible references to the title for the derby suggested. It appears to be an attempt to build a foundation to reference in the future. No such named rivalry or derby exists between: New York Red Bulls and New York Cosmos New York Red Bulls and New York City FC Adiamas (talk) 04:54, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. A.Minkowiski^{_Lets t@lk} 07:11, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Although there is clearly written here that (there's a much immediate regional rival for the Red Bulls to deal with: the New York Cosmos). But actual name of the subject that is New York City derbies is not mentioned in any of the sources like this and this. A.Minkowiski^{_Lets t@lk} 18:13, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 18:58, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - can't be a derby if they've never played a game, and they won't for another year, or the only game in history is in a secondary tournament against a minor league club. Plus there is too much speculation in the article. WP:CRYSTALBALL comes to mind. This deletion should not however be prejudicial against recreating the article in a year's time when there is actually something to write about (presuming there is), and hopefully the closing admin puts something to that effect in their closing comments. oknazevad (talk) 22:20, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If any of these were to become notable in the future, then a separate article on the individual rivalry would be appropriate. -- Whpq (talk) 01:38, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no indication that any rivalry actually exists, particularly given that they have never played. Rivalries are inherently non-notable unless they pass GNG per WP:NRIVALRY. As the teams have never played this guideline cannot be satisfied by definition. Fenix down (talk) 09:38, 24 June 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. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 13:07, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hudson River derby

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

There are a series of article that have been added (Hudson River derby, New York City derbies) and edited (New York Red Bulls) to refer to a history and _possible_ derby between the teams that does not exist yet. There are no credible references to the title for the derby suggested. It appears to be an attempt to build a foundation to reference in the future. No such named rivalry or derby exists between: New York Red Bulls and New York Cosmos New York Red Bulls and New York City FC Adiamas (talk) 04:53, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a proposed rivalry? Now I really have seen it all! Giant Snowman 18:58, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete ' - If such a rivalry were to arise in the future, and were documented with reliable sources, then we might entertain this topic. But until that time comes, my crystal ball remains cloudy. -- Whpq (talk) 01:36, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per WP:CRYSTAL, not a single match has been played, this is pure speculation / hype. Fenix down (talk) 09:35, 24 June 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 North Eastern Education and Library Board. (non-admin closure) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 11:22, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Killowen Primary School (Coleraine)

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

NN primary school. I cannot see any special indicia of notability; in such circumstances, we generally do not keep such articles as stand-alone articles. Epeefleche (talk) 04:33, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No assertion of notability has been made through references, both of which are irrelevant in terms of notability; one being a listing of the school on a website dedicated to listing schools, and the other being an 'inspection report' that is a dead link for me. Regardless of that, an inspection report has no sway on the notability of an article. Therefore, it fails WP:GNG. Flipandflopped (Discuss, Contribs) 04:51, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to North Eastern Education and Library Board per common practice described in WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:11, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No independent source found to judge notability as per WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL. The given sources seem to be irrelevant. A.Minkowiski^{_Lets t@lk} 07:21, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:14, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:14, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to ~~Coleraine~~ North Eastern Education and Library Board per SCHOOLOUTCOMES. –Davey2010 • (talk) 21:30, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to North Eastern Education and Library Board per common practice described in WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:32, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per longstanding consensus at AfD that all but the most extraordinary primary schools are presumed non-notable. Carrite (talk) 16:24, 22 June 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. Deor (talk) 12:41, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Family of Narendra Modi

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

This is a BLP issue as it is an anecdotal narration of multiple private individuals with no independent notability. The sources are all anecdotal statements made in the context of Modi. The family is not independently notable like the Gandhis or Thackerays and coverage is never for the family but about how Modi has interacted with individual members of his family in terms of individual anecdotes. Given the various possibly BLP issues surrounding private individuals, there isn't a case for merging either. —SpacemanSpiff 03:54, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —SpacemanSpiff 03:55, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —SpacemanSpiff 03:55, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —SpacemanSpiff 03:55, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing notable for a standalone wikipedia article . --Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 04:55, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Bhagwan! Delete this. Where do people come up with these ideas? As said at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jashodaben, we should have a Narendra Modi's paraphernalia in non-article space for editors to practice such Modi essays. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 06:16, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteNothing notable. Narendra Modi is notable, this does not mean his entire family is notable. Please remember notability is not inherited. Wannabeeditor6 (talk) 08:09, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that Narendra Modi does not have any children, thus inheritence is not involved. Malaiya (talk) 01:36, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. Can't inherit notability. Cowlibob (talk) 10:39, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Be allowed to exit and get developed into a better article like Family of Barack Obama Shyamsunder (talk) 22:53, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Numerous news articles about the family members of Narendra Modi have been published, and continue to be published. The family members of Narendra Modi are remarkably different from the members of the Nehru family (ordinary vs. elite, low class vs rich, low caste vs high caste) and thus make a compelling story, something that narendra Modi himself frequently referred to during the campaign. I am quite sure we will hear a lot more about them in future. Ann Dunham is notable because she was the mother of Barrak Obama, Kamla Nehru was notable because she was wife of Jawaharlal Nehru. Even Princess Diana was initial notable just because she married Prince Charles. The mother of Narendra Modi played a significant though symbolic role in the India-Pakistan diplomacy by accepting Nawaz Sharif's gift.Malaiya (talk) 01:04, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dunham, Nehru and Diana did much more than marry or birth politicians. Modi speaking about his family is WP:PRIMARYSOURCE and newspapers printing his quotes is just the same. You being quite sure of we hearing a lot more about them in future is a prophecy which we will handle when it comes true. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:34, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ann Dunham probably received any press coverage ever. She is notable only as the mother of Barrak Obama. Kamla Nehru never did anything notable, she did give birth to Indira Gandhi.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Malaiya (talk • contribs) 21:45, 19 June 2014

"Probably" in your first statement says all about it. And get your history brushed up. Nehru was active in freedom struggle and had been arrested at least twice by Britishers in 1930 & 31; once for lead a women's team in looting the foreign-made clothes under Swadeshi Andolan and second time for reiterating the Purna Swaraj speech. She also was President of Allahabad Congress Committee. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:31, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While I am quite sure I will not convince you, let me mention the following. I am quite familiar with the Nehru family and their relatives (see for example Hutheesing family). Ann Dunham and Kamla Nehru are quite worthy of inclusion ( स्त्रीणां शतानि शतशो जनयन्ति पुत्रान् । नान्या सुतं त्वदुपमं जननी प्रसूता). As you know, Kamala Nehru was a simple wife (neglected by Jawaharlal and his family as you may have read), but she did participate in the freedom movement as Jawaharalal's proxy, and Indians are deeply grateful for her sacrifices. Here are the newsreports about Ann Dunham during 1961-1965.Malaiya (talk) 22:58, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Hutheesing family article is another one that needs to be brought forward for deletion. —SpacemanSpiff 04:25, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Although Narendra Modi's family has received significant news coverage, every mention of his family in the sources is because of their relationship with Narendra Modi. Thus NOTINHERITED applies, and the article should be deleted or turned into a redirect. The stuff about the "remarkably different" family is mostly derived from Modi's own speeches; if ever there is substantive material written about it, then perhaps recreating this may be considered. The examples given above are not relevant; most of those individuals may have started out as simply "wife of XYZ" or some such, but eventually became notable in their own right. Also, OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:20, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The family is not notable and haven't done anything particularly notable (good or bad). Just another fan piece that should be deleted forthwith. --regentspark (comment) 14:00, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is nothing here that can't be suitably summarized in the Early life and education section of the Narendra Modi article. There is no independent notability, and most of this article reads as "X is related to Modi. X is not notable. Wow, isn't that notable". Well, not for an encyclopedia. Abecedare (talk) 18:58, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: We do have Family of Barack Obama whose only notability being it is the "family of Barak Obama", I've voted delete at the modi's wife AfD, but looking at this AfD makes me agnostic. wp:OSE will rule here MalaiyaYogesh Khandke (talk) 10:11, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Seems we have the "Family of Modi" subject of notable third party mention; "Modi's family: From obscurity to living under the spotlight",[45], "For Narendra Modi's Family, Celebrations and Anticipation",[46] "Reluctantly famous",[47] Did you know who are there in Narendra Modi's family?,[48] At a glance: Narendra Modi's family members,[49] For Narendra Modi's Family, Celebrations and Anticipation[50] Op argues that "coverage is never for the family" the above sources evidence that allegation is misplaced. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 10:30, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nobody besides him in the family is notable to have a separate article. If you want, you can merge it with his article but separate article does not make sense. - Vivvt (Talk) 11:47, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison For comparison with other similar/related articles on Wikipedia see:

[Category:Spouses of national leaders]- Malaiya (talk) 21:37, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Google search for prominent family members

English and Gujarati searches: Gujarati searches will result in fewer hits but will return more local information, some of which does not appear in English.

Delete This article is an example of recentism. There is not enough here to justify the article. "Other stuff exists" is not a good argument. This material would be much better covered in the Modi article where it merits inclusion in the encyclopedia at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:49, 26 June 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) 08:19, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Footage: Vacation

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

No indication of notability. This appears to be a video game that has yet to be released and is being developed by a non-notable publisher (Statera International). I can't even find one source through Google searches ~~that proves this subject even exists~~. Mz7 (talk) 03:18, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) Mz7 (talk) 03:21, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, it looks like this isn't a hoax. I found a rather unimpressive Facebook page for the subject. Mz7 (talk) 03:29, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find anything to show that this game is ultimately notable enough for an article. Maybe once it releases it'll get the necessary coverage, but for right now it's just far too soon. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:50, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also slightly leery about the fact that one of the first things that the editor did was to request that the article be edit protected, both the copy he has in the mainspace and the initial version he made in his talk page. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:52, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, probable hoax, possibly a project that hasn't come to fruition. The "international" group creating this has zero web presence. GNG not met. --j⚛e decker ^talk 05:51, 26 June 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. Without prejudice to speedy renomination. BAND #11 and the evidence presented for it were strong, but was, excluding sockpuppet-based opinions, expressed by a single editor, and the evidence, while strong, was not so unequivocal that it couldn't be plausibly contested. In short, I can't find a consensus here, and the policy is not such a binary test that I can rule that is has been met without further support from the discussion. (As a personal request *only*, while I have marked this WPASR, I would ask editors considering renomination to take a little time to investigate BAND #11 further in good faith before any renomination..) --j⚛e decker ^talk 18:02, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Miccoli (band)

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

As a non-notable band, self written probably Lixxx235 (talk) 01:08, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above --Lixxx235 (talk) 01:09, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Please provide a reliable independent secondary news source that covers this band in a signifigant way, meeing WP:NOTABLE. Thanks, Lixxx235^{Got a complaint?} 15:44, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Lixxx235 I will be putting in a formal complaint regarding the harassment and evident bullying that I feel I have experienced by your hand, I hope measures will be taken so this type of behaviour doesn't happen again to new Wikipedia users. Do you mean "meeting" the Wikipedia notable policy? I have provided more than enough citations links and reference's regarding this article. If the page is deleted then so be it. I have had far too much stress dealing with yourself and creating this article. Apologies to the people who wanted to read this article, I tried my best and to new future Wikipedia users good luck you're going to need it. qbucrs

@Qbucrs:I don't feel like I've done something wrong, please provide diffs. I requested to see significant coverage in an independant secondary source, which I felt was not present in the sources. If you feel my user conduct has been poor, there are several ways you can put in a complaint against me:

Ask an admin/go to WP:ANI
File a WP:RFC/U
File an WP:ARBCOM case

Also, before doing that, I recommend looking at the WP:SPI you were notified about. Thanks, Lixxx235^{Got a complaint?} 21:25, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note:I have opened a SPI into qbucrs. Thanks, Lixxx235^{Got a complaint?} 16:24, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*"Keep" per above notable band appeared on media platforms such as VH1 and national press. Been a fan of these guys for a long time. Simonhound — Preceding undated comment added 15:37, 31 May 2014 (UTC) — Simonhound (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sockpuppet of qbucrs (talk • contribs). [reply]

I've just created an account so I can comment on here, as someone who relies daily on information for uni work on wikipedia, I was so excited to read about one of my favourite bands on here. I have also followed them for along time and can confirm I've seen them perform live, heard them on the radio and seen them on TV. This page has to stay.lottierav — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lottierav (talk • contribs) 16:51, 31 May 2014 (UTC) Lottierav (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and AFD. Thanks, Lixxx235^{Got a complaint?} 03:34, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little confused why there is such a debate over the "notability" of this band. While I understand Lixxx235's concern about the citations I don't think that's enough to warrant an accusation of this article being self written. There are lots of things I know from my walks of life that I could write on various wiki pages with the full knowledge that they are true but not have the citation of where I got the information. The difference here is that I myself know NOT to do so on Wikipedia. I feel this is more an issue of not knowing and inappropriate citing and, should that be rectified, then I don't think there needs to be a full deletion. Not sure how the policy is but can only that which isn't cited be deleted from the article?

I think Lixxx235's comment about this band being "non-notable" is inappropriate. Just because she doesn't "note" them doesn't mean there aren't people around the world who do. I myself have seen this band perform both here in my hometown of Los Angeles and abroad in London. I don't think that one person's, Lixxx235's, lack of knowledge about this band should mean that those who do know don't have a forum to share their information about them. That's my two cents at least.

Rockstardar (talk) 17:15, 31 May 2014 (UTC)Rockstardar (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and AFD. Thanks, Lixxx235^{Got a complaint?} 03:34, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As a long time user of Wikipedia I thought it would be fun to create my own article about one of my favorite groups, far from it. I spent a lot of time researching and resourcing the links on different sites and putting together the information best I could, I also found getting to grips with the codes and various rules difficult, none the less I was happy to learn and continue. However as soon as I posted the article I had "editors" flag it for deletion. I tried contacting them for help and guidance I was ignored. Instead I felt Like I was being bullied by them to remove the work I had done, just because they were unfamiliar with the content or didn't deem it notably. I'm just a fan of the group and like many others have followed them for a while, I thought Wikipedia was a place of public information not online bullying by power hungry "editors" who post on their user accounts, like badges of honor work they have gotten deleted. The fact is people want to read about this group, they have great music and have done marvelous work for charity, all the references and citations are there for all to see. I won't be adding anything further to Wikipedia this has proved stressful enough. I hope something can be done about these online power mad narcissists. qbucrs (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 10:09, 1 June 2014 (UTC) qbucrs (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and AFD, and is a confirmed sockmaster. Thanks, Lixxx235^{Got a complaint?} 03:34, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, on the grounds that they don't yet meet any of the WP:MUSIC notability criteria. This shouldn't be taken as a negative comment on their talent or their music, they sound quite decent to me. They're a step up from your average garage band, but I don't think they're quite there yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lankiveil (talk • contribs) 10:37, 7 June 2014‎
Delete or incubate - band doesn't pass WP:MUSIC yet, maybe they will someday. 1292simon (talk) 13:21, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found some sources: about their awareness tour and a few interviews found here and here. Also found that their latest song Idle Stranger was played on BBC Radio, which should pass WP:BAND#11 With some cleanup and some more verifiable sources, I'm sure that this article will be able to pass. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 01:21, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 04:45, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relist rationale: I'd like to see at least one editor comment on the sources mentioned by MrLinkinPark333. --j⚛e decker ^talk 04:49, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this will sound picky, but #11 requires the band to be put into rotation on a radio station. The BBC link only shows that it has been played in one episode. 1292simon (talk) 10:13, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I found another different BBC Radio program that played Idle Stranger. The music video has supposely been played on VH1 too. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 21:18, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
comment Fourth question in during interview references "Idle stranger" video receiving massive play on TV networks VH1 and BLISS TV here fills criteria under WP:BAND#11 qbucrs (talk) 11:27, 10 June 2014 (GMT)

comment All the citation's and reference's that are provided in the reference section of this article offer significant support for all its content, not to mention the reference mentioning the "Idle Stranger" video receiving heavy rotation on TV networks VH1 and Bliss TV here and as others have also stated this meets at least one of the required criteria under WP:BAND#11 deeming them notable under wikipedia's own policy lottierav (talk) 13:56, 11 June 2014 (GMT)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr^\ talk / 03:15, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If the article is kept it should be moved to Miccoli, but it requires an administrator action as that page is currently a redirect. --Pink Bull 15:02, 27 June 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. Deor (talk) 13:04, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Villa zografou

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

Inadequately sourced article about a self-managed social space (commune?) in Athens, Greece. I was only able to find a couple of blog sources of questionable reliability. Fails WP:GNG. - Mr X 18:55, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 18:57, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Inadequate sources, no claim of significance. 331dot (talk) 02:15, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually there are not many sources in english, but there are plenty of them in greek. The lack of english-language arcticles about this socialcenter makes need of existance of this article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Touksen (talk • contribs) 11:38, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Needs improvement in sourcing, but appears to be well-known in Greece, and has mainstream-media coverage. "Βίλα Ζωγράφου" has 23k Google hits. Here are two semi-recent articles on the long-running controversy over repurposing the space: A 2007 article from Kathimerini, and a 2013 article from To Vima. Most Greek newspaper archives are offline, and my guess is that there would be dozens of articles over the years if someone were to dig for them. --Delirium (talk) 01:30, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even patiently using Google translate, the web addresses tell the story: mainly blogs and the like. Perhaps there is some buzz about the place, but not in mainstream, reliable sources. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:15, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete same opinion as the previous poster above. Solntsa90 (talk) 05:00, 18 June 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 OK!. (non-admin closure) --Mdann52talk to me! 08:03, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Moody

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

BLP of dubious notability. Listed references are networking sites, other Wikipedia articles, IMDb, and mentions in passing. Prod tag removed by creator. --Finngall ^talk 22:31, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article creator is the subject's wife, as admitted here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Finngall (talk • contribs) 00:18, 9 June 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. What Finngall says. A quick deletion would be the kindest option. -- Hoary (talk) 13:52, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Mrs. Moody politely withdrew from her effort after WP's guidelines were pointed out to her. --Finngall ^talk 14:10, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to OK!, where the subject is already mentioned as its social editor. The references in this article from the Jewish Chronicle and the Evening Standard are reliable but insubstantial - they verify this one fact (and could be used for that purpose in the OK! article) but do nothing more. PWilkinson (talk) 22:49, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question (primarily to PWilkinson). Is this really a good idea? My first reaction was that yes it was, but then I started to wonder. The article OK! is currently atrocious (which of course isn't your fault). The assertion within it that Moody is the social editor could indeed be backed up with a source; but then every such assertion should be, and the article has a number of them. And presumably all this info will fairly soon become out of date; whereupon a redirect from Mark Moody would I suppose require something akin to "the social editor was Mark Moody as of 2010 and 2013,[source][source] but by 2016 Joe Bloggs had taken over.[source]" My own gut feeling is that the article should name the editor in chief but (in order to avoid obsolescence or the charge of trivia) unless there's an exceptional reason, nobody else. -- Hoary (talk) 01:30, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Given the nature of OK!, its social editor is going to be far more important to the magazine than a similar post on, say, the Financial Times. And the claim in the article that Moody has held the post for fifteen years (most of OK!'s so far) does seem to be true, though quite possibly difficult to verify from reliable sources without SYNTHESIS. I would personally therefore not tend to agree with the charge of trivia, but accept that, as the sources I have pointed out do almost nothing to demonstrate Moody's longevity, they would be pretty ineffective against a charge of obsolescence once he does move on. PWilkinson (talk) 10:14, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge OK! was launched in 1993. Mark Moody appears to have been social editor throughout, so that "until he moves on" seems inappropriate. I see two altneraives: to keep (and categoise as a British journalist) or merge into OK! I do not know the relationship between the British magazine and various foreign offshoots, but if they are free-stnading magazines, they ought each to have separate articles (or a joint one or joint section in teh existing article). However whatever article emerges on the British edition of OK! could well have a section on staff, inot which this artiucle could be merged. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:36, 14 June 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, slakr^\ talk / 03:12, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If mister Moody deserves an article then we all do. In all seriousness though, the majority of this content isn't even worth merging. I think a well-cited one sentence addition of his role in the OK! magazine would be sufficient, a bit shy of a merge. Buddy23Lee (talk) 23:21, 18 June 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) --Mdann52talk to me! 08:03, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pacific Xtreme Combat

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

A non notable article without any sources to assert notability. Dwanyewest (talk) 19:35, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Easy keep as it seems the nominator didn't even bother to do a simple Google News search. –H T D 04:39, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not so clear. Google hits don't imply notability - what would help are references from reliable third party sources. Right now there is nothing that confers notability.Peter Rehse (talk) 11:20, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Number of Google hits does not imply notability, but coverage in reliable sources does. To be fair, many of the hits I found were routine press coverage, but the sheer number of such pages I found indicates that this is a notable tournament. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:28, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It would be great if at least a few could be added to the article.Peter Rehse (talk) 08:43, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As of now there are no sources supplied providing significant coverage from independent reliable sources. This is basic notability stuff. There are a lot of Google hits which means there is the potential for the subject to be notable but the burden is on those asserting notability to actually provide that evidence. SQGibbon (talk) 22:55, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant independent coverage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.212.162.5 (talk) 21:18, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone still do WP:BEFORE? I realize it became extra hard when Google News went kaput, but it is still actually quite easy. For example, searches for "PXC" gives out 191 news articles in the Philippine Daily Inquirer, 439 news articles in the Philippine Star, and 129 articles in ABS-CBN News. –H T D 09:46, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Routine sports coverage does not count. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.212.162.5 (talk) 19:21, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Makes perfect sense, right? Might as well delete the "results" section of 2014 FIFA World Cup right now. LOL. –H T D 10:22, 15 June 2014 (UTC)re[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr^\ talk / 03:01, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only coverage is routine sports reporting--announcements of upcoming cards and listings of results. Comparing this to the World Cup makes no sense.204.126.132.231 (talk) 15:55, 24 June 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. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 17:42, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of the mothers of Georgian monarchs

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

The article is too trivial and unsourced. There is absolutely no need for such a list and we have no articles on the list of mothers of other monarchs or leaders for good reasons. The subject matter is just too trivial. The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 23:26, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The list needs no source as the monarchs in itself listed are sourced. And yes we have such lists like List of the mothers of the Ottoman Sultans and List of the mothers of the Safavid Shahs. Jaqeli (talk) 23:35, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Both the listed case above are monarchies without consorts because their monarchs practiced polygamy and only had concubines thus only the mothers of Ottoman and Iranian rulers were given unique titles of Valide Sultan and Mahd-i Ulya. And both lists have sources stating their importance as stand alone articles. --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 23:43, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's not an argument. Many Georgian monarchs practiced polygamy if not the most of them. And sources are not a problem at all. The problem would be sourcing the list entirely as it would load the page way too much. The sources are found in the articles of monarchs who their mothers were so you can look there if you doubt any. Jaqeli (talk) 23:47, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The biggest problem is the triviality of it all. Let others decide if you disagree.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 00:12, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - few of those listed are actually notable enough to have articles (many are actually linked to dynasties or family names). Those that are linked don't seem to be notable for having been the mothers of their respective sons. Rather, they are notable as the queens/wives/consorts of their son's fathers; the various monarchs that came before them. Almost all of those I sampled suggested notability on that basis with "and was also the mother of x" included as an afterthought. There's nothing to suggest these people were notable for this thing, such that a list like this is required. Why not a List of the sisters of Georgian monarchs? I'm sure a few were married off to monarchs of other kingdoms such that they might be notable in their own right and can be listed on an equally trivial basis. As TENS quite rightly points out, this is just nonsense. Stalwart111 06:59, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So the mothers of the Ottoman sultans are notable but the mothers of Georgian kings are not? That kind of double-standards are not an argument. Jaqeli (talk) 10:42, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notable? Only a handful of those listed have articles. That there are other such lists we should consider deleting is not a good reason for keeping this one. There is no "double standard" - I'd likely support the deletion of those equally trivial lists too. Stalwart111 12:15, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Would be better to do family trees of Georgian monarchs which could include this information in a more conventional format. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:37, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Family trees already exist for Georgian monarchs.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 10:56, 30 May 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, -- RoySmith (talk) 20:26, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is appropriate to have lists for people where there is not sufficient information to write an article, and that's what's being done here. The individual people on the list do not have to be notable--notability is not a concept that applies to article contents, just to the question of who should have a full individual article. DGG ( talk ) 05:24, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anybody wanting to known the question: who are mothers of the Kings of Georgia can easily do this by clicking the articles of their sons on the list of monarchs article. Any informations about these people should go on the consort page (where your reasonings would be more justifiable), or the articles of their husbands and sons. There is nothing distinct or special about being mother of the Monarchs of Georgia, at least that history has given a care for. None of these individuals are recognized solely for being mothers of monarchs except the few women that are not famous for being wives and queens and only exist in brief genealogical mentioning, whose lives and deeds as queens history do not remember. Creating such a trivial list is not only ridiculous but can be considered original research. The next steps in triviality would be creating a list of sister, a list of brothers, a list of sons, a list of daughters, a list of dogs, a list of dolphins of Georgian monarchs.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 10:54, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

if someone should want to do this for first order relatives, what would be the harm? The other instances you mention to not carry the implication of notability. DGG ( talk ) 06:38, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The arguments presented by The Emperor's New Spy are convincing enough. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 11:02, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Essentially, if there are family trees, there is no new information that this article provides, as it otherwise does not meet any notability threshold. WP:OTHERSTUFF may apply to some of the above arguments as well ... Go Phightins! 21:51, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per DGG argument.68.109.175.166 (talk) 02:28, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Sockpuppet of User:Jaqeli. Both are blocked.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 05:49, 28 June 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, slakr^\ talk / 02:59, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:IAR. There are a lot of solid policy reasons to delete this, I stared at the close/delete button closing this on at least three occasions. Two of the people opin'ing for keep are blocked right now per a previous ban and sockpuppetry. WP:LISTN isn't met. But as I started at this article, I couldn't bring myself to believe that it wouldn't be making the encyclopedia worse, and not better. I realize that that is a terrible argument, but it's what I've got. --j⚛e decker ^talk 02:03, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do see this as a terrible argument no offense. It's not up to standards and I've seen many similar lists and articles deleted that would benefit Wikipedia more than this. It is just trivial and you can make a list of any relative really. The only such lists we allow are list of consorts or spouses of monarchs since they did enjoy the rank of queen and some had influence as queen, which most of these mothers were too. --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 05:44, 28 June 2014 (UTC).[reply]

No offense taken, I said myself "I realize that that is a terrible argument", and I meant it. I try and limit myself to very rare terrible arguments, but this is one. --j⚛e decker ^talk 07:51, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per j⚛e decker, but I have a slightly different slant on his WP:IAP argument. As an encyclopedia, we suffer badly from Wikipedia:Recentism. We have articles (and arguments) about TV shows, third-rate football players who just got drafted, Pokemon cards, shopping malls whose most exciting attribute is that they have a Starbucks and a Sears, etc, etc, etc. That's all crap, but it gets to stay because somebody manages to dig up enough obscure citations to satisfy WP:N or one of its derivatives. The family history of royalty from 2500 years ago is the heart and soul of what an encyclopedia is all about. If nobody can point to a wiki-policy that says this article is a keeper, then we need better wiki-policies. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:32, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per j⚛e decker and RoySmith. I have been lurking on this AfD since it first appeared and have been deeply conflicted. For the most part I was leaning towards deleting it on the legalistic grounds generally cited by those who want to get rid of it. But the above comments have changed my mind. In addition to the excellent points made by Roy, I will add another observation. Members of royal families, with a few admitted exceptions, should be notable. That's not to say that they should be given a pass the way we have with colleges and high schools. But rather that members of royal families almost always will have enough sources around somewhere to ring the notability bell. Which brings us to the bias problem mentioned by Roy. It's not just recentism, but also Western and Anglophone bias. If the subject of the list was the mothers of the Kings and Queens of England we would not be here right now. And that is most likely true of the other royal houses of Western Europe. There are tons of sources available in English and or other Western European languages that at least use the Latin Alphabet. Georgia however doesn't fall into those categories. It is a small country, geographically isolated from Western Europe and historically dominated by its larger northern neighbor, Russia. Again, enough sources almost certainly exist to satisfy GNG for members of royal familes. But, because of a lack of interest from scholars in the West, they are likely limited to Georgian and or Russian. Normally I dislike arguments favoring a presumption of sources, but in this case, I think common sense practically screams it. Does anyone really think that no one in Georgia and or Russia has written extensively on the biographies and lives of Georgian Royalty? -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:03, 29 June 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:19, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Esmond Shahonya

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

All sources written by the subject. No evidence of reliable, significant, secondary-source coverage. Does not, in current form, pass any of the criteria of WP:AUTHOR. Assertion of international renown completely unsubstantiated – sources provided make no mention of any awards. I see various online articles written by the subject, but none about the subject or his work. Super Mario Man ( talk ) 02:36, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable. No independent sources referenced. Written for promotional purposes. Cowlibob (talk) 10:51, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as vanispam. 207.157.121.52 (talk) 19:08, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Kenya newspaper search engine shows many reliable sources by Esmond Shahonya, but nothing about Esmond Shahonya, which is the requirement for notability. -- GreenC 17:27, 20 June 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. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 21:48, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gry-Online

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

Promotion of a "group of Polish websites" for video games. Some of these gamesites got some minor prizes, but each of them hardly notable. No significant independent sources about the "group". Staszek Lem (talk) 15:27, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, but the article NEEDS TO INCLUDE LINKS IN SOURCES (and generally be fixed in some other ways too). Here's the Polish article: https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gry-Online (since 2007). --Niemti (talk) 21:26, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Niemti: Just to make sure nobody is uselessly confused, can you specify whether you oppose deletion or oppose the article? AfD !votes are typically "keep" or "delete". Also, do you think you could do some translating work on the Polish article towards the English one, to incorporate sources? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:48, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion, hut these non-linked sources are just ridicalous (the links are in Polish article alright). --Niemti (talk) 14:52, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Give it some time - Seriously, I think that no matter what the reasons are, I believe sending an article to AfD one day after creation is never an appropriate option. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:48, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Salvidrim, notability isn't about the article, it's about the subject. Extra time won't change this. You don't even need to look at the article to judge the question, as it depends on secondary sources, although it's a good idea in case you overlooked something not mentioned in the AfD discussion.

However, if the author feels the article was nominated too quickly, WP:MERCY suggests: "If you feel you need more time to work on an article you just created that has been put up for deletion early on, an option may be to request userfication, where you can spend as much time as you wish to improve the article until it meets Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines. Once this has been accomplished, you can reintroduce it into main article space." Agyle (talk) 08:01, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain. ~~In Top 100 most popular websites in Poland, according to Alexa.~~ (107th). Outside this I am not seeing anything like mainstream, reliable sources to back this article up. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:07, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - @Staszek Lem Do you mean that the biggest Polish gaming site is hardly notable or do you mean that the awards it received are not very well-known? Are you using quotation marks when referring to it as a group of Polish websites for a specific reason? Gry-Online manages several sites and it is definitely a group. It is characteristic for gaming sites that other media hardly ever mention them. Take GameSpot article for comparison - references show mostly the site itself as the source. If it is OK for them, why is it not OK for Gry-Online? The links will be corrected immediately and I will try to fix other things you mentioned as fast as I can (I consider Polish html editing panel much more user-friendly than this text editor). WildCamel (talk) 13:06, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Please get yourself familiar with wikipedia general notability requirements, as well as specific requirements Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) and Wikipedia:Notability (web). Staszek Lem (talk) 19:15, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WildCamel, while you were asking Lem, I think I can provide some helpful answers. (1) Lem meant both that the gamesites that comprise Gry-online are hardly notable (in the Wikipedia sense of notable, explained at WP:N and in the links he mentioned, not in the common sense of the word), and that the awards the sites received are not very well known. I don't know whether that's true, but those are two questions that people should investigate in this discussion. (2) The quotation marks around "group of Polish websites" signify that the phrase is quoted from the Gry-Online article, and not Lem's own description. I was unable to verify this description, after a cursory attempt, so would also have used quotes. (3) Comparisons to other deficient Wikipedia articles does not justify deficiencies in this article. The Gamespot article is terribly sourced, and it is not OK; anyone is free to mark it up with citation requests or simply delete vast tracts of unverifiable information. Reliance on primary, non-independent sources is fine for certain purposes, but it should never form the sole basis for an article for reasons of verifiability, and such sources do nothing to establish notability of a topic. Agyle (talk) 06:36, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re gamespot argument: WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a valid deletion argument. Also, I tagged it with tl notability. Feel free to AfD it. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 20:22, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Have not (yet) found any significant coverage from an independent reliable source, so fails to meet notability standards on that basis. This is a complex AfD subject to consider, as it means searching for coverage of the gry-online.pl website, the GRY-Online S.A. company, four other websites run by the company, and the Polish Webstar awards accrued by gry-online.pl. Searching is complicated by what common generic terms gry and gry online (i.e. "game" and "online game") are in Polish websites (e.g. this Komputer Świat article with "gry online" in the title, with no relation to gry-online); the same issue arises searching for the term "gameplay" in their "gameplay.pl" site.

Gry-online.pl. I couldn't find any significant independent reliable source coverage about the website.
GRY-Online S.A. I found only cursory mentions in database listings (e.g. here, here and here), perhaps based on government-required filings or industry directory submissions by the company. They are also mentioned in an exhibitor guide at E3, but that is not independent coverage (they paid to exhibit, and provided their own descritpion).
Gamepressure.com, tvgry.pl, gameplay.pl, and sklep.gry-online.pl. I looked extensively for independent RS coverage of gamepressure.com, since it's an English-language site, and found nothing. I looked less exhaustively for coverage of the other sites (particularly gameplay.pl due to the false positives for the term "gameplay"), and was also unable to find any independent RS coverage of the sites.
Awards: While WP:WEB suggests winning "a well-known and independent award" may indicate notability, it does not remove the need for independent reliable sources. I also haven't yet seen anything to suggest the Webstar awards are particularly well known or "independent". I found no independent news coverage about the awards (this could very well be due to using English-language searches). Award participants pay the award organization a rather substantial US$500 ("1195 PLN 23% VAT") entry fee, so they do not consider all Polish websites. The previous year's winners are invited to vote for the current year's entrants for the Webstar Akademii award, creating "independence" questions, while internet users are allowed to vote once per day for the Webstar Internautów (kind of a "internet user's choice") award, which is a notoriously fraud-susceptible polling method (and again, only paid submissions are considered). There seem to be around 150 awards (40ish categories each with 3-4 awards including both internet, academy, and distinction awards), so it has the appearance of being a bit of a "pay for publicity" business, although admittedly that occurs with many other well known for-profit awards (e.g. the Webby Awards or Pulitzer prizes, although Pulitzer prizes in journalism carry a more nominal $50 submission fee).

A Polish-speaking reviewer would be better able to search for reliable sources; I used google.pl a bit, but mostly used English-language Google which de-prioritizes Polish search results. I looked at the Polish Gry-Online Wikipedia entry, and it seems like this article is basically a translation of that article, with the same sources (i.e. 30ish links to gry-online.pl). Agyle (talk) 22:25, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - My Polish isn't very good, but it looks to me like there is a high probability that the topic is notable. Both Polish and English VG/RS consider it a reliable source and this is backed up by a Google Scholar search where there appear to be over 500 references to the website. Obviously WP:RS != WP:N, but the two are often linked. Checking through some of the VG/RS sources I can see that GRY-OnLine has been represented by Mariusz Klamra in numerous high-profile Polish gaming conferences like the 2012 Game Industry Trends (see 1, 2, 3) and Poznań Game Arena 2009 (see 4, 5, 6). This article cries out for assistance from a Polish-speaker who can conduct a proper examination of the sources because the evidence seem to suggest that this is a notable topic. -Thibbs (talk) 11:47, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with all of that, but want to point out that very few of the 562 Google Scholar results are independent sources that mention/reference the company or website. About 350 of them are to a Polish Academy of Sciences mining journal that's trying to game the search engines with an invisible (grey text on same-gray background) miniscule text ad/html link at the bottom of every journal article. It's spamming for an unrelated gaming site, saying "Gry online - najlepsze darmowe granie na gry.com.pl" ("Online games - the best free playing gry.com.pl"). Here is one example; one way of seeing it is to select all text and look for something you can't read in the very lower left, then magnify the web page a thousand percent. Google Scholar also includes PDF documents whether they're "scholarly" or not, and a few dozen results are the company's own publications published in PDF format, or other non-RS PDFs. I think most of the remaining references use the phrase "gry online" ("game online") generically, unrelated to the company, or do not contain the phrase at all (Google tries to anticipate the results you'd find interesting whether even when it doesn't contain the search terms you entered). Agyle (talk) 20:59, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Maybe it got some notability in Poland (but even that is uncertain), but I fail to see any added value of this article on the English-language wikipedia. Regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 19:34, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree on the continuing uncertainty of its notability, but whether it's useful (has "added value") is very subjective, and I don't think is an accepted reason for article deletion. Agyle (talk) 20:59, 17 June 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, slakr^\ talk / 02:36, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete per Agyle's analysis of available sources, mostly. As he says, this is a complicated AFD and I'm inclined to think this is a subject that may become notable in the future. If that is the case we should save creation for some point in the future rather than creating it now in the hope that it might one day become notable. It's a borderline case, though, and some of the keep contributors make very valid points. St★lwart¹¹¹ 03:01, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Agyle's analysis of the sources. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:05, 18 June 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 14:19, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wartime Station, Saskatchewan

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

Notability of this community not verified by reliable secondary sources. Google search for "Wartime Station" Saskatchewan -wikipedia yields nothing that confirms existence of this community/place. Neither Statistics Canada nor the CGNDB, which would be reliable secondary sources, recognize the place within the RM of Monet No. 257. [51] [52] [53] [54] Hwy43 (talk) 02:26, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Hwy43 (talk) 02:28, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article can always be recreated if sufficiant information and sources can be found. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 09:00, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This may be an unintentional duplicate of Wartime, Saskatchewan, which is a verifiable locality along Saskatchewan Highway 44 (though both articles were created by the same user), or perhaps there was a nearby railway station at one time (since Wartime is on a railway line); but in the absence of sources, there's nothing to support an article. Deor (talk) 13:38, 26 June 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) 11:58, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clever Girl

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

Fails WP:BAND. Unable to find references from reliable, third-party published sources. Woodroar (talk) 02:17, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I fail to understand the importance of this subject. Wannabeeditor6 (talk) 08:22, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Lack of reviews or other coverage. Doesn't pass WP:BAND. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:41, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Searched for reliable sources, did not find any. Antrocent (♫♬) 22:51, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Whatever. Delete it if you want. Wikipedia's guidelines for notability are a complete joke. I Am A Sandwich (talk) 23:58, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. LibStar (talk) 13:51, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Baldock services

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

fails WP:ORG. I don't see how this service station is notable. the story about ducks in the article is pure trivia. LibStar (talk) 02:09, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Philg88 ^♦talk 05:08, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transport-related deletion discussions. Philg88 ^♦talk 05:09, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If not independently notable, content could be selectively merged to A1(M) motorway. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:24, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:ROADOUTCOMES says UK motorway service stations are usually kept as notable, but I have no idea of the logic behind that, because there doesn't seem to be much coverage. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:46, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm leaning towards keep if a couple more sources can be found, particular if this is a common outcome. Philg88 ^♦talk 09:53, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The debate on British motorway service stations has been had several times before and they are always kept as per WP:ROADOUTCOMES. These are not just truck stops. They are large complexes established and maintained by statute. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:01, 18 June 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] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Daedalus

[2] ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive

[1]

[2]