Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 February 2

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 1 February	3 February >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 05:34, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BeMemorable

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

Poorly-sourced article about a non-notable company. The sources are affiliated websites that apparently exist to prop up other websites with dubious awards. I am unable to find any reliable sources that cover the subject in depth. Fails WP:ORGDEPTH. - Mr X 13:30, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 13:40, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 13:40, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 13:40, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 22:49, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -There apparently no independent, reliable sources exist for the company. Fails WP:NCORP. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 23:18, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – several source searches are not providing coverage to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:26, 10 February 2015 (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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 03:49, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Satanic Warlock

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

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and neither is it a repository for product announcements. This piece of literature is supposed to be release more than a year from now in April 2016. Even then, there is no guarantee that it will be popular (read: notable). Furthermore, there doesn't appear to be any coverage from news sources so it seems to fail WP:GNG. I can see no other option than to delete for now, without prejudice against recreation at a later date. Thank you, ceradon (talk • contribs) 22:41, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Bottom line here is that it's over a year from release, and so there's simply no independent coverage. Multi-million-dollar films sometimes (but not always even then!) generate enough third-party discussion to warrant an article this premature, but books? Not so much, and certainly not in this case. No prejudice to recreation in 2016 if independent reliable sources emerge. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 23:33, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NBOOK and indeed too soon. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:14, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. I'll be completely honest: it's hard for religious books to gain enough coverage to pass notability guidelines on Wikipedia and that's after the release date. Most outlets just don't want to cover religious works, regardless of the religion. This book doesn't look like it's one of those exceptions, especially since it hasn't released yet. This may gain coverage after it releases, but I'll be honest in that the odds are stacked against it. Most of the places that would be considered RS typically go for your mainstream (ie, "safe") religious works by extremely well known people and the lack of chatter about this book in even the non-reliable sources is also kind of telling. Normally there'd be at least some kind of talk out there somewhere and there doesn't seem to be any, at least none that aren't WP:PRIMARY. I know that this hasn't released yet, but it doesn't look like it's going to be a particularly noteworthy book even within its religion. This is way, way WP:TOOSOON for an entry at this point in time. This is in Template:LaVeyan Satanism, so if deleted (which looks likely) then it'll need to be removed from there as well. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:07, 4 February 2015 (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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 03:50, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of country names in many languages

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

Arbitrary (why just these countries in these languages?) and outside the scope of an encyclopedia. - Biruitorul ^Talk 22:10, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a country-name translation guide. And that's not even addressing the fact that the limited list of languages, and limited list of countries, condemns this to inherent POV concerns. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 23:35, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Certainly arbitrary and almost certainly unencyclopedic. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --ceradon (talk • contribs) 23:44, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There are too many countries and far too many languages in the world to make a full list manageable, rendering it subject to the concerns raised in the comments above. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 07:00, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, dictionary, "many languages" is arbitrary. Geschichte (talk) 15:47, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Undelete Do you have List of numbers in various languages? --Laughing Elephant (talk) 05:03, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - in addition to the arguments given above, this page seems to be redundant with List of country names in various languages. —Granger (talk · contribs) 12:28, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (A)WP:INDISCRIMINATE (B)WP:DICTIONARY --Clean-up-wiki-guy (talk) 18:47, 4 February 2015 (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 A7. Alexf^(talk) 23:47, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Evoke Socks

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 22:07, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While I was on it typing deletion rationale and taking a look at Google news, it was nominated for speedy deletion per A7. If it survives speedy, we may discuss it here. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 22:10, 2 February 2015 (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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 03:50, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Rayhan

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

Fails Wikipedia:Notability KylieTastic (talk) 21:17, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete as per nomination. Flat Out let's discuss it 01:45, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete Pure vanity publishing Andy Dingley (talk) 02:56, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete blatant AUTOBIO, no third party sources. LibStar (talk) 14:08, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete this is mostly promotional, for the person and his company, which is emphasized in all caps and bold. The sources look mostly like promotional pieces. Iwilsonp (talk) 01:51, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
note - The author added their comment to this pages talk page: "The appropriate sources and reference have been provided for the page titles 'Mohammed Rayhan'. There should be no complaint's against it."

If they think the sources where "appropriate" I advise they read Wikipedia:Verifiability KylieTastic (talk) 13:13, 7 February 2015 (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. There seems to be little consensus here and some obvious strong links to historical rivalries. The historical nature of the rivavlry probably should be emphasized as someone else mentioned. JodyB_talk 22:09, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Auburn–Tulane football rivalry

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

Non-notable college football rivalry that fails WP:NRIVALRY and WP:GNG. Per WP:NRIVALRY, no sports rivalry is inherently notable, and every sports "rivalry" must satisfy the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG. That means significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources explicitly covering the series as a rivalry, not merely as a recurring game series. By that GNG standard, there is virtually no significant, in-depth coverage of Auburn-Tulane as a "rivalry" in multiple, independent, reliable sources per WP:RS. Has anyone ever written an in-depth feature article about the history and significance of the Auburn-Tulane series as a rivalry? Has anyone has ever written a book about the Auburn-Tulane series as a rivalry? Alabama-Auburn? LSU-Tulane? Auburn-Georgia? Yes, to all of those. Auburn-Tulane? Nope. And that's not surprising at all, given that this game has only been played once in the last 60 years, and has not been played in consecutive seasons since 1955. This series has/had no trophy and few of the other hallmarks of a traditional college rivalry, and none of the independent sources covering the historical game series discuss it in any depth as a "rivalry." CFB rivalries are about tradition, and this game series has little. This is not what was intended by WP:NRIVALRY, and this article is not supported by the precedents of previous AfDs and WP:CFB talk page discussions for a stand-alone CFB rivalry article. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:06, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question. Clearly not a current rivalry, but they did play on an annual basis from 1921 to 1955. Can you confirm that you've searched newspaper and other sources to determine whether or not it was considered a significant rivalry back in those prior decades? Cbl62 (talk) 00:20, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder the same. Tulane has lots of football programs online to see how they considered Auburn then; e. g. The Greenie; Auburn vs. Tulane Cake (talk) 20:36, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cake, football programs produced by the home team are not independent coverage, as required by WP:GNG to establish notability. Nor are yearbooks, school newspapers, conference publications, or NCAA records books. We also typically discount hometown newspaper coverage, too. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:45, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Only claiming them as a starting point. On another note, it looks like this was an annual happening in New Orleans for years. I wonder on the coverage of the '32 game, for both 32 Tulane and 32 Auburn were fierce. Jimmy Hitchcock had 2 70 yard TDs. Cake (talk) 05:36, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cbl62, I have pored through over 200 articles from the 1930s, 40s and 50s, and I have yet to find any significant coverage of this series as a notable rivalry. Passing uses of the word "rivalry," yes, but nothing that recounts the history of the series as a rivalry and its significance to the two programs as a rivalry. I am still looking, however, and everyone who participates is obviously welcome to do their own searches of Newspapers.com, Google Books, Google News Archive, etc., just as I am. You once asked me if the Florida Gators could justify having six or seven rivalry articles (two of which were historical). I now ask you the same: can the Auburn Tigers justify having 8 or 9 rivalry articles. My answer is "no," no program can justify 8 or 9 afrticles about genuine rivalries (at least any program that's not named Notre Dame). Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:11, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - In a very quick whirl of the internets, it seems that Tulane-LSU is a "historic rivalry." I'm not seeing any evidence of this for Auburn-Tulane, rather a relationship that suggests "long-term conference opponents." The three consecutive scoreless games in the 1930s might be historically significant and sourceable to the point of being a GNG pass. I'm not sure the "rivalry" is, however. Carrite (talk) 20:41, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Undoubtedly Tulane-LSU is a historic rivalry. Aside from location, there was a time when one would always accuse the other of cheating (why LSU's 1908 title is tainted, and one sees an All-Southern player from that era of LSU only rarely). However, my knowledge of the late 30s until the 50s is pretty limited, and playing every year does have me wonder much like Cbl62. Plus, he covers All-America teams from that era at least. Cake (talk) 20:46, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm leaning toward keep. I found an article from the 1930s which suggests that this was definitely a rivalry at one time, though it has clearly lapsed. Mackensen (talk) 22:42, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mckensen, what we're looking for is significant coverage of the series as a rivalry. Passing mentions of the series as a "rivalry," such as the one you linked above, don't cut it. I can find passing references to virtually every multi-year CFB game series as "rivalry"; passing uses of the word "rivalry" in routine coverage are not magic incantations that save articles about non-notable games series from deletion. We're looking for in-depth discussion of the history and significance of the rivalry to the two concerned programs. Has the rivalry been covered in one or more stand-alone books? Has the history and significance of the rivalry been the subject of in-depth feature newspaper and magazine articles (i.e., those who primary subject is the rivalry)? Does the series receive annual coverage as one of the great CFB rivalries? If you can't answer "yes" to two or more of those questions, it's probably not a notable CFB rivalry. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:02, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, understood. I can't give you that. Still, "annual renewal of football rivalry" suggested permanence, at least at the time. Mackensen (talk) 23:09, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mac, if finding passing references to an "annual renewal of football rivalry" were the standard, virtually every annual conference series in the SEC, Big Ten and Big XII, and most of those in the ACC, Pac-12 and Ivy League would be classified as notable rivalries. The funny thing about real rivalries is you know them when you see them. Most of them are self-evident. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:22, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On top of rivalry meaning simply "annual contest" to some, some rivalries are inevitably lost to time in their significance as well. Say, were this 1950, or were Sewanee still a power, an Alabama-Sewanee article would be necessary. That said, the tone of the article, the persistence of the series, and that it's still ongoing somewhat has me leaning towards keep. It's certainly more significant than Auburn-LSU. It seems to be a before-Tulane-left-the-SEC rivalry. Cake (talk) 23:27, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cake, I've fought to keep articles about historic CFB rivalries in the past; this ain't one of them. As for "ongoing," this game has been played exactly once (2006) in the last 60 years since 1955. This was a former annual conference series for 34 years that ended when Tulane decided they could not compete in the football-crazy SEC. And nobody has produced anything that smells like significant coverage in independent sources. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:40, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I remain uncertain. Here is another mention: 1. Cake (talk) 23:54, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, another passing use of the word "rivalry"; could just as easily substitute the words "annual game." Not even close to significant coverage as a rivalry in my estimation. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:04, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep while it may not be a modern-day rivalry, it sure seems to have been a major rivalry in the past. And notability can not be lost. Personally, I don't really like rivalry articles--but that's not a reason to delete it.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:14, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Paulmcdonald:, please provide links to sources that support the proposition that this was "major rivalry in the past." I've reviewed 34 years of game coverage for this series, and the coverage of the series as a rivalry is not significant. I've done my BEFORE homework, and I don't think the coverage is there. If you believe otherwise, please provide the links. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:19, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This seems like one of the most obvious deletes we've had. Aren't Alabama, Georgia, and LSU enough for Auburn rivalry articles? I could see maybe Auburn-Mississippi State, or Auburn-Georgia Tech for the historical angle, but schools like Tulane and Florida State aren't even in Auburn's top 10 rivals... Jhn31 (talk) 02:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think I would have no trouble arguing Tulane-Auburn is a more significant rivalry historically than Auburn-LSU. That is nothing more than conference alignment. Florida was a big rival of Auburn's for a long time, and only recently has this drifted away in significance. They used to play every year and it was definitely called a rivalry by everyone, much like the game with Miami (FL). As a Gator fan ugh for the many years an Auburn field goal derailed the season. If it were up to me right now I think Auburn's rivals, in order, would be Bama; UGA; UF; Tech; Tulane. I don't know much about the Clemson-Auburn rivalry. Cake (talk) 21:13, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per my earlier comment above the second source presented by Cake. The phrasing "will renew a rivalry dating back to a scoreless tie in 1902" can't be dismissed so easily. Certainly the article should be rewritten to reflect that this is a historical rivalry and is no longer active, but that's an editorial question. Mackensen (talk) 13:12, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mackensen: Respectfully, Mac, if two passing references to "rivalry" in 34 years of newspaper articles make this series notable as a "rivalry," then every annual series -- current and historical -- in the Southeastern Conference is a notable "rivalry," too. The evidence for the subject's notability based on the two linked articles is as thin or thinner than that for a dozen other rivalry articles we've recently deleted. Please remember: WP:GNG requires significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. Right now, we've got only TWO independent sources whose coverage of the subject as a rivalry is NOT significant. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:36, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Trying to pull together some of the coverage to help make a decision. Both teams were major Southern powers in the first half of the 20th century, and they played every year from 1921 to 1955. Not a current rivalry but maybe a significant historic rivalry. Coverage from the early 20th century is not easy to retrieve, but I find four AP wire stories (high level, not local, coverage) to support this being a notable historic rivalry: (1) this AP wire story from 1947 ("The Auburn-Tulane rivalry is one of the oldest and closest in the South."), (2) this 1939 AP story titled "Tulane Auburn Renew Rivalry" and calling it "one of the keenest rivalries in football", (3) this AP wire story from 1938 referring to the "annual renewal of the football rivalry between the Auburn Plainsmen and Tulane Green Wave", (4) this 1936 AP wire story titled "Tulane and Auburn Renew Gridiron Feud This Week". Also (5) this 1937 newspaper feature story referring to Tulane-Auburn as "one of the biggest October rivalries in Southern football" and a series that had become a "guaranteed thriller". Cbl62 (talk) 19:47, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want to know who Auburn's most significant football rivals are? Well, here are some unscientific, but certainly relevant statistics taken from Google web search results:

1. "Alabama-Auburn rivalry" - 540 results, includes all sorts of random references, as you would expect for one of the top 10 rivalries in college football [1];

2. "Auburn-Georgia rivalry" - 166 results, includes some references to other sports [2];

3. "Auburn-LSU rivalry" - 124 results, includes some reference to other sports [3];

4. "Auburn-Tennessee rivalry" - 80 results, includes some references to other sports [4];

5. "Auburn-Florida rivalry" - 66 results, includes some references to swimming and other sports [5];

6. "Auburn-Georgia Tech rivalry" - 47 results, includes some references to other sports [6];

7. "Auburn-Arkansas rivalry" - 31 results [7];

8. "Auburn-Clemson rivalry" - 24 results [8];

9. "Auburn-Ole Miss rivalry" - 17 results [9];

10. "Auburn-Mississippi State rivalry" - 14 results [10];

11. "Auburn-Florida State rivalry" - 9 results [11];

12. "Auburn-Tulane rivalry" - exactly 5 results, including three different results for the same 1947 AP wire article, this AfD discussion, and an Answers.com mirror article.

These Google web search results are by no means scientific, but they are completely consistent with a long-time SEC insider's gut instinct regarding the relative significance of Auburn's various football "rivals." In the grand scheme of things, Auburn-Tulane was not a significant rivalry, and no one has yet provided links to significant coverage of the series as a rivalry. Nada. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:04, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As you say, those results are "by no means scientific." This is a rivalry that dates to the 1920s, 30s, 40s and 50s. A google search is a seriously flawed research vehicle for topics occurring several decades before the advent of the Internet. Cbl62 (talk) 22:13, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Using that methodology, the "Michigan-Chicago rivalry" yields only 2 search results. [12] Yet, that is an indisputably notable historic rivalry. Again, google searches don't cut it when dealing with historic rivalries. Cbl62 (talk) 22:16, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apples and Oranges, Cbl. The Chicago-Michigan rivalry (and Chicago football generally) were on a downhill trajectory after 1924; Chicago's only post-war victory in the series was against one of the worst Wolverines teams in program history (1934). In the last 15 years of the Chicago program (1925-39), the Maroons had only one winning season. The Auburn-Tulane series was still being played annually until 1955, in an era of mass newspapers and statewide radio coverage of CFB games. If you want to compare the number of Newspapers.com and NewspaperArchive.com search results regarding the Auburn-Tulane football series, and the subsets of those same Newspapers.com and NewspaperArchive.com search results that use the word "rivalry," we can get a truer sense of how meaningful this "rivalry" really was. Then we can compare those results to those for Alabama-Auburn, Auburn-Georgia, Auburn-LSU, Auburn-Tennessee, Auburn-Florida and Auburn-Georgia Tech -- and we can further limit the search results to 1921 to 1955 for apples-to-apples comparison purposes. FYI, the Auburn-Georgia Tech rivalry was at its height during the same decades that Auburn-Tulane series was being played. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:53, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Both rivalries pre-date the Internet era by many decades. My point is that a simple Google search doesn't work for either. For this reason, your listing of google search results simply doesn't add anything meaningful to the discussion. A search of newspapers.com for each of the above-referenced rivalries limited to the years 1921-1955 would, indeed, be more telling. Cbl62 (talk) 23:10, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per your suggestion, a search of newspaperarchive.com for the years 1921-1955 pulls 3 hits for "auburn-tulane rivlary", zero hits for "auburn-georgia tech rivalry", zero hits for "auburn-lsu rivalry," zero hits for "auburn-tennessee rivalry," zero hits for "auburn-florida rivalry," zero hits for "auburn-arkansas rivalry", 4 hits for "auburn-georgia rivalry", 24 hits for "auburn-alabama rivalry". Does this mean that Tulane was one of the top three Auburn rivalries during this period? It was a good thought, but, frankly, I'm not sure it really adds much to the discussion. Cbl62 (talk) 23:40, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sports rivalries, like professional wrestling rivalries, are usually just clever marketing spam. (And how many college teams are out there - squared? That's how many potential rivalry articles exist once the slippery slope is slid past.) Pax 00:33, 11 February 2015 (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 redirected to Total Drama#Characters. It's very clear that no one is in favor of retaining this 14-word sub-stub. Consensus is split over whether a redirect is appropriate, but four relists later, this has had its time in the sun. As several people noted, redirects are cheap. Non-admin closure. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:59, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Duncan (total drama island)

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

Need I really give a rationale for this. It does not meet WP:GNG, there are no reliable sources covering "Duncan" only, in fact, the subject of the article doesn't even exist. A character on a low-rated TV show is all. The article doesn't even have any significant content to be merged into any articles, much less sources. Wow, how the fuck did this get here. ceradon (talk • contribs) 00:28, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You know? Instead of cussing we can talk about this like real grown people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JuvieDelinquent (talk • contribs) 03:15, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. No evidence of any out-of-universe significance of this character. I'm not even sure this warrants leaving a redirect back to Total Drama#Characters, which is where the old List of Total Drama characters now redirects. —C.Fred (talk) 03:19, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fix title, redirect to Total_Drama#Characters. The character of Duncan is not notable outside of the series, at least not enough to merit his own article, but I do think that there is merit in having this turned into a redirect to the main page. He's a reocurring character and has been in each season of the show, sometimes as a major character and sometimes as a minor character (from what I can see from the fan wikias). It's reasonable enough of a search hit, given how popular the TV show is and redirects are cheap. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:24, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also I would like to ask that everyone be civil about this. While Wikipedia is not censored and people can cuss, I do have to caution you ceradon that cussing can be seen as hostility by other editors and we do need to be careful to make sure that Wikipedia is seen as a welcoming community. I'm not saying that I don't agree with you in that the character is non-notable and there's nothing to merge, just that you could probably have phrased this a little better and left out the first and last sentences. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:27, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 21:11, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deadbeef 01:40, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: With respect to TokyoGirl, I do not believe this character is even significant enough to bother with a redirect, but it costs nothing so I would not oppose it.

But I certainly agree with TokyoGirl's remarks regarding ceradon's use of foul language, which was completely unnecessary in the circumstances. The article was less than 24 hours old when this nomination was made, so it is not a situation where the article had been lying around neglected for years. On top of that, it was JuvieDelinquent's second day here and their second attempt at creating an article. I notice they haven't been back since posting the comment below the nomination, so nice job scaring off a new contributor. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 00:57, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Athomeinkobe: Yes, I cursed, but only out of pure dumbfoundedness about the nature of this article. Wikipedia isn't censored. If you're going to let one "bad word" get under your skin then this may not be the place for you. Tokyogirl79's comments were constructive. I acknowledged them (without recommenting), figured out what I did wrong and I'll definitely try to do better in the future, especially with new editors. Your comment downright antagonizes me, and that doesn't come off right to me. Furthermore, your argument is non sequitur. Yes he hasn't edited since the day I posted this but behind that account is a human being who has a life. Additionally, the user's talkpage is filled with scary warnings we use for vandals which may also have been offputting. I'll apologize to the user, if that helps. Damnation seize my soul if I commit an action that could be construed as uncivil, especially to a new editor, the future of this encyclopedia, and I don't apologize.

I seek not to get into an argument with you; these things can turn acrimonious quickly. Neither do I seek an apology – but I do ask you to heed my comment. Thank you, --ceradon (talk • contribs) 01:19, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - The Herald (here I am) 13:08, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Just a quick little bit of info: the character has been in every season of the show to day (five seasons as of right now) and he's been in 77 episodes out of the 120 that have aired, predominantly as a speaking character. That's the biggest reason I'm arguing for a redirect- he's been in a large chunk of the show and is one of the characters that people tend to identify with the show. (I think Gwen and Courtney are the other two that many identify as some of the more main characters in the show.) I mostly just wanted to throw this in here for the argument for a redirect. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:57, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - The Herald (here I am) 16:04, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: While fictional characters can become WP:NOTABLE due to pop culture (looking at you Dana Scully), it doesn't really appear (due to lack of discussion about Duncan specifically) that this Duncan fellow has entered the popular consciousness. Also a painfully short stub. --KRAPENHOEFFER! TALK 16:37, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 11:37, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Birungyi Barata

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

Fails WP:CORP, repeatedly recreated see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=delete&page=Birungyi,_Barata_&_Associates Gaijin42 (talk) 04:22, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 04:31, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 04:32, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (gossip) @ 18:10, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy Delete~~ [struck my vote, see my three comments below]) 05:49, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Below, Snowager votes "Speedy keep and close", so the "speedy delete" vote here should be struck out. Snowager could you ~~strike it out~~, please? It should be disregarded, anyhow. --do ncr am 04:28, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Snowager: you mention (G4. Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion) - where can I find the previous deletion discussion? Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 15:56, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since there is no reply, it seems there was no prior AFD. So the "speedy delete" vote seems to have been misinformed, and should be disregarded? I see there is further discussion below...it may have been speedy-deleted before. --do ncr am 04:18, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question: There are currently only six other articles in Wikipedia about individual law firms in Uganda. I would not even know where to start finding reliable sources for these articles. Does this mean that all these articles will be removed from Wikipedia? BTW this afd went up shortly after I added the article to Category:Law firms of Uganda. I would hate to think that my action is the reason this article is up for deletion. Ottawahitech (talk) 15:37, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

the timing is coincidental. I had previously nominated the article for speedy, so it was on my log. I was reviewing the log (for unrelated reasons) and noticed this article was recreated (because it was a blue link, it stood out), and so came to look at the current state of the article. It seemed to still not meed our guidelines, so I nominated it. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:56, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article has been speedily deleted twice. Once for unambiguous promotion and the other for a non-notable article. Also, the article has been tagged that it may not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline. The article should still be deleted as it may fail Wikipedia:ORG. Snowager (talk) 16:35, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Snowager: Up above you said that this article was previously deleted per a deletion discussion -- now you say it was speedily deleted. Since there is no discussion in wp:speedy deletions, and articles are not speedy-deleted "for unambiguous promotion" and "for a non-notable article", can you please slow down and explain exactly why you think this article should be deleted now? Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 02:10, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Very well. It may not meet the criteria for speedy deletion as I couldn't find the deletion discussion for it, you can ignore the CSD G4 so I can focus on the article's notability and how it was recreated. It should not be speedily deleted but it should be Deleted for the following reasons:

~~1: Speedily deleted material shouldn't be recreated or otherwise run the risk of going through a deletion discussion.~~

~~2: It fails Wikipedia:ORG, as said by Gaijin42.~~

~~3: It promotes and/or publicizes an entity, how the article got speedily deleted for spam one time.~~

~~Overall, the article should just be Deleted for these reasons.~~ Snowager (talk) 05:30, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to confirm there was no prior AFD deletion discussion, and I don't see specific evidence that it was even speedy-deleted or prod-deleted, though if snowager says it was, it probably was. Anyhow, whether this is a re-creation or not, fine and good, do let's discuss the material in this AFD. And pls. comment more generally about what makes a law firm in Uganda notable or not. Surely some are worth covering. Is there a source ranking the firms, or giving a top 10? --do ncr am 04:28, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I know little about the topic let alone the country, and since the country is not well covered in Wikipedia, I hate to see the little we have removed from this encyclopedia. The article uses neutral language and is supported by twelve references. Ottawahitech (talk) 14:41, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep and close. I agree with Ottawahitech's words now. Snowager (talk) 19:29, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This vote also should be disregarded, as Snowager changes vote again below. --do ncr am 18:43, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

sources comment the vast majority of those sources are WP:PRIMARY documents of court rulings where the law firm represented one of the parties. The ibanet link is a letter, written by Birungyi. newvision.org is an article about a lawsuit where the firm is mentioned in passing as representing one of the parties. taxplanet.com is just a yellow-pages list of lawfirms. iflr1000 is a directory listing. None of these qualify for WP:GNG or WP:CORP notability as sources. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:01, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I believe in Gaijin's comment, primary sources, fails notability, recreated after 2 CSD's, so overall, we should DELETE and close instead of keeping it. Snowager (talk) 00:33, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be Snowager's final "vote" as of now. I asked Snowager to return and strike previous votes. --do ncr am 18:43, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter (talk) 09:13, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - The Herald (here I am) 16:04, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I am afraid all entries in Category:Law firms of Uganda fail our notability guidelines. Law firms need to be written about by reliable sources to be encyclopedic (notable); that they exist is not sufficient. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 17:19, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, tentatively. I noticed mention at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering Systemic Biases, about this AFD and the small category of law firms in the country. I found all 6 other articles in the category PRODed with the identical message, and I removed all 6 PRODs. One is about a law firm that is asserted to be the first and oldest law firm in the country. This one and all the others have sources, are not obviously bad. Will read and browse more, but they all seem okay. Many of them cite some index source on financial-related law firms (IFLR). Does that establish importance? And, could we share views about what distinguishes between notable vs. non-notable law firms in the country, and if non-notable what is your cutoff for covering the firm as an item in a list-article of law firms in the country. Surely some are notable. Surely eliminating all Wikipedia coverage is not the way to develop. Possibly keeping some individual ones, and covering all in a list-article (merging the non-notable ones, rather than deleting them), should be considered. Also please discuss general matters here, i suggest, and let this AFD close, rather than nomming all 6 others for AFD immediately. What sources are reliable vs. not reliable, for establishing most significant law firms in this country? --do ncr am 04:16, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Question about law firm ranking sources - Further, quick searching I find Katende, Ssempebwa & Co., which does not have an article, is asserted to be "the largest and leading law firm in Uganda", founded in 1969, and "consistently ranked first" among Ugandan law firms, both in some Chambers and Partners guide and in IFLR1000 (try IFLR). Is Katende firm obviously notable? Also I see IFLR cited in this Birungyi Barata article, as giving BB a "Tier 4" rating (is that fantastic, or is that horrible, i don't know). Can anyone figure out whether either of these two sources are good? And, if there's an acceptable ranking, what are the top ones that we should start articles for, before proceeding with deletions? Or, better, merging others into a list-article, say List of law firms in Uganda or start first with List of law firms in Africa. I see no African coverage in Category:Lists of law firms? --do ncr am 04:41, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chambers And Partner's, about Uganda law firms, gives some ratings of some firms in "band 1" vs. "band 2" vs "band 3". Gives no "band 4" or higher numbers at that webpage. Would BB be in a "band 4"? --do ncr am 05:03, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There was a list: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of law firms in Uganda. I do not know if the outcome of that AfD was correct. I didn't run an exhaustive search for sources, and never professed to have done so, despite what others claimed. Likewise, there are similar lists for other countries, despite what others claimed. James500 (talk) 17:26, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oooh, thanks James500! Yes, about that AFD, I don't think the "Delete" decision was correct, from what i can see. The three participants did not seem to be aware of the Chambers and Partners source, or other sources, and mis-interpreted what you said, yes. There are more than 3 notable law firms in the country. In fact I think all 10 listed in the Chambers and Partners source are probably individually notable and certainly to be covered in a list-article. One person asserted there exist no other list articles of type "List of law firms in Foo", which is incorrect: since 2008 the category of Category:Lists of law firms has existed, and one was "List of largest European law firms", created in 2008, since moved to List of largest European law firms 2005. Also there is a complaint the article had been created by a sock, but as someone noted that does not require the article to be deleted. I am going to request a full copy of the article to be restored to Draft:List of law firms in Uganda (redlink now, hopefully will turn blue). Let's develop that, covering at least Birungyi Barata and other six in the category, plus any others within the 10 listed in Chambers and Partners. Ottawahitech, can you help? Also, I will start Draft:Chambers and Partners; I see that it is cited a few hundred times in law firm articles in Wikipedia already, and appears to be a reliable, well-established source about top law firms world-wide, an article is needed. --do ncr am 18:43, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: at least merge, if not keep outright, so why not Keep?. Given a list-article of Ugandan law firms in development / re-development, the outcome of this AFD should be either "Merge and Redirect" or simply "Keep". In fact, I think it could be closed "Keep" already, leaving a decision to editors of the list-article, about whether the Birungyi Barata article should be left as an individual article or redirected to the list. It doesn't require an AFD to do a redirect. I think the AFD nomination and participation here so far was all in good faith, but I wonder if everyone who voted "Delete" could come back and reconsider, allowing this to be closed Keep. Pinging: Gaijin42, Piotrus, and Snowager could you please indicate whether you re-affirm your vote, or change it? sincerely, --do ncr am 18:43, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:ADMASQ. Article created a year ago by new SPA who knew how to make an article with tables in his very first Wikipedia edit, leading me to assume a new sock of a previously-banned hired gun. Pax 00:42, 11 February 2015 (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. This discussion has been relisted twice, and a decision seems needed. I'm taking Animalparty's comment as, in effect, a "weak delete" opinion, and the sole advocate of keeping doesn't seem to have mounted a persuasive, policy-based argument. Deor (talk) 15:04, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Raywat Deonandan

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

Fails WP:ACADEMIC or else academic credentials establishing notability are not stated. Bueller 007 (talk) 22:02, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:22, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:22, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:23, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:23, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:53, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: he may qualify per WP:AUTHOR, as the article states he received the national Guyana Prize for Literature in 2000 (see Guyanese literature#Guyana Poetry Prize). I couldn't find sources for this (or any previous winner) though. Mind matrix 15:59, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 08:43, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:44, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:PROF, as can be seen from his GS profile, which states a h-index of 4. Did apparently not receive the National Guyana Prize for Literature in 2000, but a lesser award for first novel. -- 120.23.97.38 (talk) 22:54, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, the National Guyana Prize for "Best Book of Fiction" was won in 2000 by David Dabydeen’s A Harlot’s Progress. Deonandan indeed won a lesser award for first novel. -- 120.23.61.162 (talk) 08:35, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Most web mentions of the subject are cloned from this article. This article, in turn, relies solely on the subject's own (self-published) bio and website. -- 120.23.97.38 (talk) 00:51, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is known for being a public commentator on global health issues of Third World countries. Needs better references, but the editor who stopped by just to delete this article, 120.23.97.38's argument that the autobiography is the only source, no longer stands, and professors are surely not required to have only professorial notability. MicroPaLeo (talk) 02:34, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't think he even comes close to meeting WP:PROF, and I don't see any news or other coverage supporting the idea that he "is known for being a public commentator on global health issues of Third World countries." Adding links to blog posts he's written himself doesn't really make the case. He might meet WP:AUTHOR for his books (which would indeed make WP:PROF moot, as MicroPaLeo suggests), but I doubt it. The only coverage of his fiction that I can find is cloned from Wikipedia, or is written by Deonandan himself. -- 120.23.61.162 (talk) 08:27, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- He seems to be well known enough that you came to Wikipedia solely to get his article deleted. MicroPaLeo (talk) 08:32, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I contribute regularly at AfD on a wide range of articles. My IP address varies. And please, WP:NPA and WP:AGF. -- 120.23.61.162 (talk) 08:38, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - The Herald (here I am) 16:03, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The WP:PROF guideline #8 reads: "The person is or has been the head or chief editor of a major well-established academic journal in their subject area." Deonandan is credited as "Faculty Advisor" (his bio states "Executive Editor") of the Interdisciplinary Journal of Health Sciences, which is currently hosted under Deonandan's domain name, and doesn't clearly appear to be well-established. Since the journal itself is non-independent of Deonandan, I don't think that can count towards determining notability in any sense, nor can articles written by Deonandan. Significant secondary coverage is still lacking, and unless those can be provided, I say deletion is warranted. I've found only one sign of a review of his work, (a shorter excerpt from another is on his publisher page) but those alone may not be substantial enough to satisfy WP:AUTHOR. --Animalparty-- (talk) 21:05, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not seem to meet either WP:PROF or WP:AUTHOR - or for that matter WP:GNG. He is an assistant professor and executive editor of a non-notable journal. His books do not seem to be notable - and as noted above, his claim on his faculty page that he received "the national book award of the nation of Guyana" seems, to put it kindly, dubious. Maybe a promising young scholar, but nowhere near Wikipedia standards at this time. --MelanieN (talk) 23:06, 4 February 2015 (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. Snow Keep (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 00:48, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Crash Override Network

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

Lacking notability outside of Gamergate. Ries42 (talk) 14:19, 2 February 2015 (UTC) Specifically, page lacks notability on its own, and only has notability when linked to the Gamergate controversy. Should be Deleted or Merged with Gamergate article. Ries42 (talk) 14:24, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merged/Redirect with Zoe Quinn works too in my mind. As a note, there are 10 sources on the article right now. Of them, half of them (5) mention Gamergate directly in the title. The only source that doesn't mention Gamergate in the title or article is the Tumblr source (a primary source). Many of the articles read as articles related to Ms. Quinn or Gamergate, that also happen to mention her latest project Crash Override Network. In reply to Liz, I disagree. To answer your question "Would this organization be notable if a person who is not well-known had founded it?" I submit that without Gamergate or Zoe Quinn specifically being a founder, this would be completely not-notable. I am not intending to make a judgment on the content of the project, and if more is done in the next few months on it, the project may become notable on its own and the page should be remade. At this point though, that isn't the case. Ries42 (talk) 20:03, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep That is incorrect. Per WP:NGO it falls squarely within the guidelines of a notable non-commercial entity. The scope of the organization's charter is at a minimum national in scale and has received significant coverage in multiple, reliable sources independent from the organization. The guidelines further specify that attracting "widespread attention" as "reported by independent sources" precisely because of a "prominent scandal" is a contributing factor to its notability as an independent wiki page, not the opposite as you have suggested here. Deletion for non-notability is not justified per non-commercial entity guidelines. There are rules for different kinds of organizations as to which are considered notable for purposes of having their own Wikipedia page, it is not based on an editor's individual prejudice as to an organization's notability. The criteria is specific and unambiguous. --Modemx (talk) 04:04, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Zoe Quinn. Right now this is an extremely recently launched website and other than some sites announcing that it launched, there really isn't enough coverage for this to really warrant its own article at this point in time. Now I'd recommend redirecting this to Quinn's article since she is one of the two founders and is the only one with an article on Wikipedia. It could go to Gamergate but this isn't really strictly GG related and that article is already long enough as it is. But mostly it's that this is really only GG related in that some GG related figures launched it and it deals with online harassment, but not GG specific harassment. Quinn's article already has a sentence that sums up the website/service in a nutshell and until more coverage comes about, I don't see where this really passes notability guidelines right now. It can always be re-created in the future but this is just a little soon for an entry.. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:52, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you referring to it as a website rather than an organisation? Haminoon (talk) 00:04, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because by large the amount of coverage out there refers to the website launching. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:12, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But either way, I'm just worried that this is getting judged on Gamergate's notability as opposed to this organization's individual notability. Everything out there almost solely talks about this launching, so I'm just leery about keeping this based on what's actually pretty light coverage once you get down to it. I think that it'd be better to have someone userfy/incubate it for a few months and then bring it back when it's received more in-depth coverage. GG is obviously notable and while we can't completely divorce CON from this, we shouldn't be so quick to say that it'd be useful or that it's notable because of GG. I'm just worried about this getting contested a month or two down the line (if it's kept) and someone arguing that the article was kept based on people giving it inherited notability from GG, because it would be useful, and because of emotions. It's not that I'm particularly against this being here, just that GG related deletions can get messy, especially if people think that an article was kept for the wrong reasons. I'd just like to make sure that we avoid that if at all possible. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:20, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Handily meets WP:GNG for independent, in-depth coverage, in this case covered by Wired, PC Magazine, Christian Science Monitor, National Monitor, The Daily Telegraph and more. A trout for the nominator. Binksternet (talk) 15:01, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Notability is conferred by in-depth, third-party coverage, which this subject has in spades. It is conferred irrespective of the circumstances by which the topic came about. Nobody is denying that this subject came to be as a result of the Gamergate controversy, however according to the sources, the group does wish to operate beyond Gamergate-related harassment, so a redirect to that (already huge) article would be inappropriate. Furthermore, there are persons involved in the operation of the group other than Zoe Quinn, hence a redirect to her article would also be inappropriate. --KRAPENHOEFFER! TALK 16:12, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - While the organization's founders have experienced harassment due to the GamerGate controversy, the scope of this organization is much larger than that group. Considering that it provides counseling to victims of harassment on social, technical, safety, legal and law enforcement issues, especially in the online world, I definitely think it is notable. This article should be judged on the merits of the organization and not on the notoriety of its founders. I ask myself, "Would this organization be notable if a person who is not well-known had founded it?" and I think the answer is "Yes". Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:48, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge/Redirect to Zoe Quinn~~ Keep. Organisation is only notable for one event in terms of gamergate. Hasn't achieved anything notable to merit its own article. Avono (talk) 19:35, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: do note that the WP:GNG do not allow us to use our subjective criteria for determining the notability of a subject. The guidelines are clear: in-depth, independent coverage. The topic itself has generated in-depth coverage. I would agree with your logic if the sources mentioned this in passing when discussing Zoe Quinn or Gamergate, however, this is not the case; hence, Wikipedia policy would suggest that this subject merits it's own, separate, article. --KRAPENHOEFFER! TALK 20:00, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
based on WP:NGO I'm going to change to keep. Thanks Avono (talk) 20:34, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I agree with previous keep comments. It meets WP:GNG.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 20:42, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per Krapenhoeffer. — Strongjam (talk) 23:11, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Clearly meets WP:NGO, and I wouldn't have started the article otherwise. I don't think it should be merged with Zoe Quinn as this article will be of interest to people like me who have no interest in gaming and game developers. Haminoon (talk) 08:15, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Merge: Seeing as how the website was indirectly created as a result of the GamerGate controversy, it seems like it may be a good idea to keep or merge it. 92.233.220.248 (talk) 16:52, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, nice source coverage, including publications globally and multiple languages including Dutch language and German language. — Cirt (talk) 01:17, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. It's got enough coverage to be included somewhere. If there's no continuing coverage, people could start a merge discussion on the article's talk page. I can see how it might get merged into Zoe Quinn's article, but I think it's a bit early for that yet. Let's see how it plays out. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:08, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Clearly meets WP:NGO Spdegabrielle (talk) 21:10, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 01:51, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Doddaballapur in Banks

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

Not very clear what the article is about. Seems like some list of banks, but no sources, no evidence of notability. Vanjagenije (talk) 13:06, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm fairly sure that this is a list of banks in Doddaballapur. Even setting aside the lack of references or the dubious (if not machine-translated) English, the core problem here is that Wikipedia's just not the place for this local treatment of banking facilities. Theoretically, this could redirect to List of banks in India, but I think the odd title makes outright deletion the way to go. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:02, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -A list of banks in a city? Ideally, if sourced, it should in the city article. I would agree calling title odd that preserving it as redirect either to city article or anything else would serve no purpose. It doesn't seems like a likely search term. I mean, it is grammatically incorrect, banks happen to establish themselves in city, how a city in bank? Anupmehra -Let's talk! 04:36, 4 February 2015 (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 withdrawing nomination, consensus seems for keep. LibStar (talk) 01:28, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Penny

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

I don't see him meeting any criterion of WP:NACADEMICS. Being a "Harry white fellow" does not meet criterion 3. LibStar (talk) 15:34, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:05, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:05, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:05, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable based on publications alone. Those publications are used as references *Keepregularly in Wikipedia articles. Harold White fellowships are awarded by the National Library of Australia. Castlemate (talk) 01:19, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep* In WP:NACADEMICS If he meets this criteria "2. The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level." he is notable. So if a Harold White Fellowship is highly prestigious he is notable. university of toronto libaries states a review of The religion of Falun Gong by (Prof) L. L. Lam-Easton California State University, Appeared in Choice on 2012-09-01. Choice is The Australian Consumers Association's magazine. university of chicago states Choice Magazine: CHOICE Outstanding Academic Title Awards Won. It has a review by Prof T. H. Barrett, University of London of The religion of Falun Gong. His name appears 27 times in the Falun Gong article (has had 8,500 edits). If you are a significant writer about Falun Gong I think that you should be mentioned in that article and if you aren't hopefully you don't get mentioned.Aaabbb11 (talk) 23:49, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The subject may be notable for his scholarship relating to falun gong, but the article entirely lacks third-party sources (all are from the university he works at with the exception of a very short blurb from the Nat'l Lib. Australia). Some better references need to be found, and I suspect that they will only be found in Australian publications, which I don't have access to. Mark as "references needed". LaMona (talk) 10:50, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Simon Scott Plummer reviews THE RELIGION OF FALUN GONG in The Times Literary Supplement (16 November 2012). duffbeerforme (talk) 11:44, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 12:42, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has become confused due to mistakes in editing. Comments have been placed incorrectly in the middle of other existing comments and all sense has been lost. I hope whoever is responsible can repair the damage. Thanks Castlemate (talk) 23:13, 2 February 2015 (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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 03:52, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Blair

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

Not being completely certain about the notability of this one, I'm bringing it to a wider audience. (I've just reverted it from a totally non-notable hijack.) The only reference is a college profile, and either his career hasn't progressed to more notable areas, or no-one seems to care about it any more. Peridon (talk) 12:01, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 16:28, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable college football player. Subject does not satisfy the specific notability guideline for college athletes per WP:NCOLLATH (no major awards), or the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG (insufficient significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources). Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:50, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete college placekickers could accumulate coverage to pass WP:GNG but I cannot seem to find such coverage. If it were presented I would reconsider.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:08, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blair did get lots of routine mentions in game coverage, Paul, just like most kickers. But the coverage is by no means "significant." Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:24, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Either way, I didn't find any. Perhaps if I looked harder.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:45, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not finding significant coverage in mainstream media sources. My searches only turned up routine passing references. Cbl62 (talk) 00:49, 7 February 2015 (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) –Davey2010^Talk 03:08, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tsunami (Manic Street Preachers song)

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

The UK charting seems to be the only thing qualifying this as notable, and I don't believe that that on its own is enough. Lachlan Foley (talk) 10:47, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I've found two in-depth sources on the song through a Google search, one by NME and one by The Guardian. I think these are enough to pass WP:GNG or WP:NSONGS. Kokoro20 (talk) 05:39, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NSONG - "1.Has been ranked on national or significant music or sales charts". If the nom doesn't think this is enough to pass notability, then they should raise a RFC. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:34, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - charted, multiple sources available ==> meets notability criteria. Rlendog (talk) 22:00, 6 February 2015 (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. Anyone wanting to merge can contact me on my talk page, but would want to overcome User:Animalparty's compelling point. Stifle (talk) 14:55, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of palindromes

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

This list has the same problems as List of palindromic phrases in English, which was deleted (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of palindromic phrases in English). (And I could have sworn another version of this list was just deleted a month or two ago—can anyone help me find the AfD?) I think a decent list of palindromes could be created (particularly, one which restricts itself to notable palindromes with their own articles). However, this article isn't it. Psychonaut (talk) 10:05, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Palindrome#Famous English palindromes (the really well-known sentences are already in the article, as are some example words and some not so wonderful sentences: e.g. "Go hang a salami, I'm a lasagna hog"). Clarityfiend (talk) 10:58, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/merge There are plenty of sources out there listing famous palindromes such as Aha!. The topic therefore passes WP:LISTN and the rest is a matter of ordinary editing. Andrew D. (talk) 12:42, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are some sources that discuss lists of palindromes, mostly in educational books. Whether this constitutes significant coverage is open to debate, but I wanted to note that the article as currently constituted lacks any sourcing whatsoever, and that each palindrome should be sourced for its significance - using the article as a dumping ground for any palindrome that comes to mind is not how Wikipedia works. Nwlaw63 (talk) 17:49, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Indiscriminate and trivial content, extremely broad inclusion criteria, contrary to WP:SALAT: if solely being a self-evident palindrome is the criterion, that is clearly indiscriminate, and will possibly invite original creations. No need to merge to Palindrome, which is already clogged with trivial mentions of palindromes (see Palindrome#Names_and_titles and Palindrome#Television. "But they exist!" Ugh, who cares? --Animalparty-- (talk) 20:30, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Even if this article be deleted, I'll still have this article, but on Wikia. Planet Star 00:32, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Interesting trivia, but not an encyclopedic topic. Perhaps a partial merge to palindrome#Famous English palindromes would be in order... Carrite (talk) 20:45, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Smerge the most notable phrases. Bearian (talk) 01:38, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 18:21, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fatima al-Sughra bint al-Husayn

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

No secondary source to verify existence of the person , unreliable partisan source cited. Summichum (talk) 10:05, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG, there are no mentions outside this en.wiki page and some other social networking sites. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 08:26, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. Reference can't be checked as the links leads to a page that is unavailable for viewing. Jarkeld (talk) 08:48, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is available for me and it has not mentioned anything more than a single line that has been already copied pasted here. Thus fails GNG. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 09:39, 6 February 2015 (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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 03:52, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

4st 7lb

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

This song was not released commercially as a single, it is merely one of many tracks from The Holy Bible, and the only supportive references are based around the album, not the song. By this logic of inclusion in the Wikipedia database, any song from The Holy Bible could have an article created for it simply because The Holy Bible is notable. Lachlan Foley (talk) 10:03, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Plenty of notability established in sources that are not primarily talking about the album. I have just added ten references, most of these being cite books. Obviously no decent WP:BEFORE was done here. Nom's argument that the song was not released as a single is irrelevant to its notability and the deletion discussion. -- Sam ^Sing! 13:29, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even before Sam added 10 refs (only 10?!), this would pass WP:GNG. Recommend the nom reads WP:BEFORE before continuing with AfD nominations. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:32, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per the sources recently added. As mentioned, the fact that it wasn't released as a single is irrelevant to the song's notability. Kokoro20 (talk) 13:27, 7 February 2015 (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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 03:53, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jalal Shamshuddin

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

Unnotable person , no citations to reliable secondary sources. Summichum (talk) 09:59, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No passing mentions either. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 08:24, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I just checked The Ismaili, Their History and Doctrine and Religion, Learning and Science, and as far as I can tell, this figure is not even mentioned. I can't find any other good sources, either. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 10:17, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please ref "Mullah on the Mainframe"p.41.The person is noted personal responsible for start of Dawah in India. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.215.156.81 (talk) 10:56, 4 February 2015 (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) 13:59, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of tallest buildings in Cairns

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

None of the buildings listed are notable. The biggest is a mere 56m. Also nominating

List of tallest buildings in Townsville

LibStar (talk) 08:53, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 23:43, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. These cities are not big enough or high enough to merit these articles. -- Necrothesp (talk) 00:22, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How big do they have to be and why that size? I am presuming you mean in relation to population. - Shiftchange (talk) 07:14, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 00:22, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Save. These two cities are bigger than Darwin which is not subject to deletion. They took a lot of time to write as I contributed to both they do need more citations which will help improve them. The Hobart page also has no skyscrapers but is that page still suitable for inclusion? CHCBOY (talk) 00:38, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 00:38, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

the Hobart article lists a number of notable buildings. LibStar (talk) 00:47, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to which, Hobart and Darwin are both state/territory capitals and therefore, while maybe not as large as Cairns or Townsville, are considerably more significant and well-known on the world stage. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:09, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Must items on lists be notable according to any guideline? - Shiftchange (talk) 12:04, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

you haven't actually provided a rationale for keep. LibStar (talk) 03:44, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because the original rationale for deletion is invalid. The list contributes to the sum of all knowledge. - Shiftchange (talk) 07:14, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

should we then have List of tallest buildings in Griffith because that would add to the sum of all knowledge too. LibStar (talk) 07:39, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, searching at skyscraperpage.com search on "Cairns" or "Townsville" gives info, but searching there on "Griffith" does not. --do ncr am 04:23, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, definitely, the items in a list do not need to be individually notable for an article themselves. Many lists in Wikipedia are defined to include only items that are notable / have articles, but that is not at all required, as is covered in wp:LISTN. In fact it's good to have list-articles to allow for coverage of items, to allow for redirects to the list-article, rather than pushing editors to, say, create an article about each separate tall building in Cairns. --do ncr am 03:29, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (revised from "Keep, tentatively") What is the source of building heights? Can sources be added? Anything about the topic of building heights in Cairns? Towards establishing the topic of tall buildings in Cairns is a topic, which is noted to be sufficient for keeping (not necessarily required) at wp:LISTN. It is said above that "OTHERSTUFFEXISTS" is not an argument. In fact, the existence of other comparable list-articles DOES matter, is relevant. We need to work towards consistency now. It used to be that Wikipedia was so incomplete that it was hard to make reasonable comparisons. Now there are reasonable comparables. They do matter. Why indeed these 2 list-articles, when not others on the navbox linking amongst Tallest buildings articles for various Australian cities? --do ncr am 03:34, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note, there is Emporis source in the article, about heights of 20 tallest buildings in Cairns. Also there is this skyscraperpage.com page about tallest buildings in Cairns, covering 13 buildings. That is 2 reliable sources about the topic of tall buildings in Cairns. (And skyscraperpage.com gives these 18 buildings in Townsville, apparently the 12th largest urban area in Australia). It would be nice to have some text discussion source too. See other Tallest buildings list-articles in other countries. These kinds of list-articles are one really good thing in Wikipedia, they are useful/interesting, it's what Wikipedia does well. --do ncr am 03:43, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, invalid reason for deletion, as there is no requirement that all or any of the entries on a list have to be notable for the concept itself to be of interest. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:23, 4 February 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Keep, unreasonable reason for deletion. The pages have enough details (and buildings) that are interesting to compare with others and by itself, just as the USA equivalents. I've just added in the Central Park development which is huge thing for Cairns. UnbreakableMass (talk) 04:28, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Per Doncram. If Emporis has a listing, a reliable source and database dedicated to skyscrapers in relevant cities, than I'm convinced. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 04:40, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks everyone for your support in wishing to keep the article. I started it back in April 2013 but have not contributed to the article much due to the stagnant building sector in Cairns. Hopefully things will change soon with all the towers planned for Nova and Aquis both going ahead. The article can only expand and get better in the years ahead.CHCBOY (talk) 07:33, 6 February 2015 (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 Dabangg (film series)#Production for Dabangg 3. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 03:09, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dabangg 3

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

WP:NFF and WP:TOOSOON. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:41, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Babita arora 11:32, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dabangg (film series)#Production for Dabangg 3 -There are tons of reliable sources that mention the subject and help it reach GNG and it is likely to be a plausible search term and since there already exist an article on film series that talk about title, a redirect appears to me a valid alternative to deletion. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 04:24, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dabangg (film series)#Production for Dabangg 3 where policy suggests it may be written of. Anupmehra is correct... it has not yet begun filming and so fails WP:NFF (paragraph 3). Just as I wrote last May, even when a film topic is TOO SOON for its own article it may still be spoken of somewhere. Kailash29792? Babitaarora? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 10:41, 4 February 2015 (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 Closing because speedied G11 (not by me...). Peridon (talk) 20:14, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Latest web design trends

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

As written, this is obviously not an encyclopedic article. In terms of a policy-based rationale, it violates WP:OR. Alas, I couldn't find an appropriate speedy criterion. Kinu ^t/_c 08:29, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - the page is written as a how-to guide (WP:NOTHOWTO), clearly it does not belong here on Wikipedia. Lots of the supposed references are other Wikipedia articles. --Joshua ^{Say "hi" to me!}_{What I've done?} 10:46, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My first reaction on reading this was to look for the advertising link, as this reads like so much art-spam does. (Being somewhat cynical, I have a sneaking feeling that that link might have come later...) If it's not art-spam in intent, it still fails WP:NOTHOWTO. People might learn from it. They learn from recipe books and the For Dummies books, but Wikipedia is not that sort of project. Peridon (talk) 12:22, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, here we go... the link in the "Interactive story telling" section is to a website about which this author has repeatedly attempted to create an article (see his deleted contributions and also a draft in his current contributions). That by itself might be enough to speedy this as a G11; I'll tag it as such but will defer to a less-involved admin's judgment. --Kinu ^t/_c 15:12, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's really a matter of opinion that something is a trend. Kitfoxxe (talk) 13:15, 2 February 2015 (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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 03:53, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

VeraCrypt

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

The article reads like an ad, is almost entirely based on primary sources, and written by a single-purpose account. At this point, I don't think the software is notable enough to warrant a separate article. Since this is a fork of TrueCrypt, and probably 99% identical, it could simply be mentioned in the TrueCrypt article. Laurent (talk) 08:28, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There is a certain amount of ad-like verbiage in here, but nothing that can't be easily reworded without losing meaning. Certainly nothing unsalvageable. In fact much of the structure looks to be modeled on the TryCrypt page. SPA-written, perhaps, though again there's nothing excessive that can't be tweaked. Sources as given in the article do rely heavily on the vendor's own site, but a quick search shows numerous other hits about the product. Since this is one of (currently) only 2 viable replacements for TruCrypt, and has grown past a 99% forking, I think the notability threshold is met. Cleanup needed, yes, but not reason to delete outright. Crow^Caw 23:27, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Yes, it may have characteristics of an ad, but as Crow mentioned, VeraCrypt is currently one of the only 2 viable replacements for TrueCrypt, which has halted all development and is no longer officially available as of last year. The other one is CipherShed. (Please also note that both are free & open-source software.) While it is mostly based on primary sources, the information presented can be independently verified by looking at the publicly available source code. As for notability, a search for "VeraCrypt" on Google shows that it does have coverage from independent sources. Tony Tan⁹⁸ · talk 03:41, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article needing a re-write shouldn't preclude it from inclusion in Wikipedia. The article's subject is the functional successor to one of the most well-known cyber-security software tools. Non-primary sources abound on the Internet; they simply need to be used to replace content citing primary sources. Smeggysmeg (talk) 20:04, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I agree, it is not well written and from a single source, however it is a new product, quite different to Truecrypt and should be listed. I am more concerned why we are even discussing deleting this entry? Brain696 (talk) 20:12, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I created this page by editing the existing TrueCrypt page and updating it with VeraCrypt's unique characteristics. I am not part of the VeraCrypt development team, just a VeraCrypt user who was surprised to find that there was no Wikipedia page for VeraCrypt, even though there is a page for TrueCrypt (defunct) and a page for CipherShed (vaporware so far). It is blatantly unreasonable to even consider deleting the page of the ONLY currently functional member of the TrueCrypt family, while retaining pages for the two non-functional members of that family. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Commenter8 (talk • contribs) 18:41, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sounds legit to me. Ellomate _{(questions? talk/consult my lawyer)} 23:59, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 4 February 2015 (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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 03:56, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Burgess

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

This is a promotional, WP:NOTCV kind of BLP. Meticulously referenced, but only to his own publications and interviews. Google turns up almost no independent coverage of this guy or his publications. He appears to be the one and only client of his "publisher". Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:02, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Opabinia is indeed correct: meticulously referenced but "there is no there there." I found one article that was mildly intersting, regarding his departure from a lawfirm, but it certainly wasn't enough to establish notability. —Noah 07:24, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Having books published under the imprint D & M Fancy Pastry Pty Ltd very strongly suggests self-publishing to me. Peridon (talk) 12:37, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this is a CV, not an encyclopedia article. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:22, 4 February 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO, reeks of self promotion. LibStar (talk) 05:33, 5 February 2015 (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 ~~Rummel Creek Elementary School~~. Closing early as nn schools are redirected and the nom seems in favour of redirecting so shall do just that, If anyone wants it merged they can discuss it on the TP (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 03:12, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops that should've been "Spring Branch Independent School District" - Not sure what the hell happened there!, Thanks Spiderjerky for spotting the cock up!. –Davey2010^Talk 00:17, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rummel Creek Elementary School

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

I'm having trouble finding decent sources to establish notability and verifiability of the article's content (someone tagged it for OR). I'm thinking that the article should be redirected to or merged with Spring Branch Independent School District, but I feel more input is needed before any action is taken. Command and Conquer Expert! ^{speak to me...}_{review me...} 06:43, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Command and Conquer Expert! ^{speak to me...}_{review me...} 06:46, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Command and Conquer Expert! ^{speak to me...}_{review me...} 06:46, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom. Most elementary schools do not warrant articles of their own; usually they get redirected to the school district or a similar page. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:46, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to school district per longstanding consensus at AfD that all but the most exceptional elementary schools are non-notable. Carrite (talk) 20:49, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 4 February 2015 (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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 03:56, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thrive (video game)

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

Game still far from release, no sign of meeting our guidelines for software notability - sole Reliable Sourcy reference does not mention Thrive. Nat Gertler (talk) 05:21, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dev here (Untrustedlife, Michael Hamm) (Im not a team lead, just a humble programmer), but we have been itertively releasing updates for the game for several months. Actually.But A fan set up the wikipedia entry.I went ahead and made it a bit more accurate (the article) however, I agree that it is not really that "notable" yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.183.92.99 (talk) 14:27, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The only source which isn't a reddit post, is actually a review of Spore. No third-party sources mentioning the game can be found. Naturally, the article can be re-created once it becomes notable. --KRAPENHOEFFER! TALK 16:44, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, for now at least. There's no third party coverage yet, and no hurry to create the article, considering how early in development the game appears to be. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 17:04, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there are over already more than 10 versions of the current in-development game^[1] available. It is also, according to the developers, one of the rare game that intends to be scientifically exact, which is why it should be notable^[2]. BurnoutShou (talk) 02:04, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

We don't take product creators' words that something is particularly special. Really, in general, when we say "notable", we really mean "noted" - that other people of significance are talking about it. --Nat Gertler (talk) 05:09, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, WP:N clearly states that the we need multiple independent sources with non-trivial coverage to meet that guideline. Statements from a developer are obviously not independent.--199.91.207.3 (talk) 18:43, 5 February 2015 (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) 01:08, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not enough coverage in reliable sources. A WP:VG/RS Google custom search comes up empty. It's a bit too soon for this game, and we can recreate the article later when there's coverage. I suggest they submit a few press releases to gaming blogs. That might get the ball rolling. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:31, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and other, similar comments. Walter Görlitz (talk) 09:47, 7 February 2015 (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. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 23:36, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Helen Klanderud

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

Does not meet criteria for biographical notability, majority of refs are from a single obit CompliantDrone (talk) 06:16, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:03, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:03, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As disproportionately well known as Aspen, Colorado may be, its actual population is only in the 6K range — which is not large enough to confer an automatic presumption of notability on its mayors under WP:NPOL, and unfortunately this article is neither sourced enough to get over WP:GNG in lieu, nor substantive enough to make any real claim that she's in any way more notable than the norm. (Nothing in this article suggests that she accomplished anything unique, for example — it just lists a few completely standard accomplishments of the "all mayors do this" variety and details her raw electoral history.) So all in all, this is little more than a misplaced obituary which offers no genuinely substantive evidence of notability. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 23:13, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:34, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The sources used for this article are from independent news organizations, not family sources/obits as stated in previous comments on the Helen Klanderud: Revision history page (Aspen Daily News, Vail Daily, etc.). In addition to Mayor of Apsen, Klanderud held county-wide office as Commissioner on the governing body for the county. While it may be the largest county in the U.S., County Commissioners are increasingly included on Wikipedia as well. From a personal perspective, I tried to create a well cited, biographical article with supporting details, noting Klanderud's political and public career in Colorado and contributions to the region, in terms of healthcare policy, local government, etc. I also tried to make it balanced. My hope is to eventually expand the Aspen mayoral topics to include a Mayor of Aspen parent article with separate biographical articles on the town's other recent and historic mayors, though real-world responsibilities and obligations have delayed this potential expansion at present. All that aside, Klanderud's public career passes the test for inclusion here. Scanlan (talk) 02:19, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Our base rule for mayors is that a city has to have a population at least in the 50K-100K range before it can confer notability on its mayors under WP:NPOL — and even then, the city has to be closer to (or over) the higher end of that range before it's safely beyond any debate about whether the mayor is really notable enough to clear the bar. For a place as small as Aspen, you can't claim NPOL but rather have to get a mayor over WP:GNG by citing considerably more references than this — and at least some of those references would have to be to significantly larger and more widely-circulated newspapers, much more on the order of the Denver Post or The New York Times than anything you've offered here. A mayor in a town of just 6,600 people does not get over our inclusion bar on the basis of five citations to the local newspaper and local advertising directories. And county commissioners don't get an automatic NPOL pass either — just like smalltown mayors, we keep them if, and only if, they can be much more solidly sourced than this. Bearcat (talk) 21:42, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, two of those "local" sources are owned by Carson City, Nevada based Swift Communications and are nothing but advertorials for resorts and real estate companies. - CompliantDrone (talk) 21:50, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Aspen Times and Vail Daily newspapers have been published, in one form or another, since the 1880s and 1980s respectively, long before their acquisition by Swift Communications. Ownership of local U.S. newspapers and other publications by larger companies headquartered elsewhere is common and in no way discounts or excludes them as reputable sources, especially for news articles. While not owned by Swift, the same could be said for the Aspen Daily News, a daily publication that has been around since the late 1970s.Scanlan (talk) 03:10, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Note the expansion of the section on her work as mayor of Aspen on Climate Change, with attendant sources such as the Denver Post, summed in the lead as follows: "As mayor, Klanderud was an active proponent of efforts to study and address climate change, initiatives for which the city received national and international recognition" (World Wildlife Fund, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). Her activity in this area, at national as well as regional and local forums, was not something "all mayors do". Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 16:34, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Multiple reliable sources meet the General notability guideline WP:GNG. -- GreenC 01:31, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While Aspen is a smallish city, she used her role as Mayor of a high-profile city to advocate nationally for her issues. Bearian (talk) 01:36, 10 February 2015 (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. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 23:37, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Métis of Maine

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

Non-notable social club. Most google hits use this page and the website as only source. Unsourced since 2010. I believe this is a for-profit venture and they are attempting to use WP to misrepresent themselves. - CorbieV^☊ 00:27, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 05:10, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 05:10, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some references were added. The group was formed in 2003 and in 2013 had about 400 members. State of Maine extends recognition to the MÉTIS. Ludi Romani (talk) 06:58, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I find it shocking the state gave any recognition, as culturally the group is neither Métis nor Northeastern Woodlands, but it's not the first time something like this has happened. The 400 people claim is in that one brief article. I don't think it was investigated. Personally, I don't buy it. - CorbieV^☊ 19:32, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Found the "recognition" was BOGUS: http://www.maine.gov/legis/opla/JUDbillsumm2007.pdf shows that the Bill draft linked here (LD 115), was not enacted. ("ONTP" means "ought not to pass") A search of current Maine Statutes, shows no formal "recognition" for this group. Apparently they talked someone into introducing a bill in the state legislature and it went nowhere. Montanabw ^(talk) 07:47, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:34, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - given the aforementioned review of sources. St★lwart¹¹¹ 06:37, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 14:54, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Marcus

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

Inadequately sourced article about a minor actor. I am unable to find reliable sources that discuss the subject in any detail. Fails WP:NACTOR. - Mr X 01:39, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actor is not a minor. http://www.famousbirthdays.com/people/samuel-marcus.html shows that he is 19 years old as of yesterday. Hoovergroover (talk) 05:25, 25 January 2015 (UTC)Hoovergroover — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoovergroover (talk • contribs) 01:46, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator meant minor as in "not major", not minor as in "underage". And famousbirthdays.com is never a reliable source for anything on Wikipedia anyway, so even if this were hinging on age, which again it isn't, that link still wouldn't be relevant at all. Bearcat (talk) 09:34, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 05:09, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 05:09, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He is extremely recognizable and very well known across the world from appearing on Teens React. The YouTube videos he appears in get over 1 million views each. Here are a few:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGo16GG9qTA (11.765 million views) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWIBXhQrHE4 (2.03 million views) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APMKmiPtYYw (7.331 million views)

As well, you can see him on the Bravo website from starring on The People's Couch.

Also states that he is not a minor in this article: http://www.bravotv.com/the-peoples-couch/photos/the-people-of-peoples-couch/item/10123466 http://www.bravotv.com/the-peoples-couch/season-2/blogs/the-egbers-show-me-the-funny

Here is an interview he did:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQ_iEqQ5Qso

He has also appeared on high profile TV shows such as Criminal Minds and Key & Peele and films like The Bling Ring.

He definitely fits the criteria. Llbb454 (talk) 05:18, 25 January 2015 (UTC)llbb454— [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

His work is all blue inked with the exception of a few short films. Hoovergroover (talk) 05:25, 25 January 2015 (UTC)Hoovergroover[reply]

Whether the works he appeared in are blue or red links is irrelevant to whether a person qualifies for an article or not. Bearcat (talk) 19:10, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Our inclusion rules for actors do not grant a freebie to every actor who exists, nor to every actor who appeared as a supporting or guest character in a bluelinked production — it's not the claim of "did X, Y and Z" that gets a person into Wikipedia, but the quality of the sourcing you can provide to support the claim that they did X, Y and Z. But as written, this article is relying entirely on primary and unreliable sources, with no evidence provided that he's garnered the level of reliable source coverage necessary to qualify for a Wikipedia article. So no prejudice against recreation in the future if and when it can be sourced properly, but this version in its current state is a delete. Bearcat (talk) 19:10, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know that I agree with you but I understand your argument. Llbb454 (talk) 04:07, 26 January 2015 (UTC)Llbb44|Llb454[reply]

Also, he is a series regular on both The People's Couch and Teens React. Those are neither guest or supporting. Llbb454 (talk) 17:44, 27 January 2015 (UTC)Llbb454[reply]

No type of role — extra, guest, supporting, regular, star, doesn't matter — in no type of production — film, TV series, web series, doesn't matter — confers an automatic notability freebie on anybody if reliable source coverage about the person themselves isn't present to support the article. What gets a person over WP:NACTOR is not the claim itself, but the quality of sourcing that can be provided to support the claim. Bearcat (talk) 19:15, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And so you're saying that the YouTube videos that are done by partners of YouTube and the interviews that are listed as sources are not reliable enough to support the claim?Llbb454 (talk) 19:51, 29 January 2015 (UTC)Llbb454[reply]

YouTube videos are never valid sources for anything on Wikipedia, ever. And again, what I said about interviews is that they're acceptable for additional confirmation of facts after the notability has been covered off by sufficient reliable source coverage — but they cannot confer notability if they're the only sources you've got. Bearcat (talk) 20:45, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:33, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On the Wikipedia:Reliable source examples page it says this about YouTube videos: "YouTube: YouTube and other video-sharing sites are generally not considered reliable sources because anyone can create or manipulate a video clip and upload without editorial oversight, just as with a self-published website. However, official channels of notable organisations, such as Monty Python's channel, may be acceptable as primary sources if their authenticity can be confirmed, or as a secondary source if they can be trace to a reliable publisher."

The videos listed as primary sources are from the official YouTube channel of the Fine Brothers, proving that the videos of Samuel on Teens React are reliable primary sources. Also, don't forget that he has gone by the name Sam Egber and Samuel Egber in the past. Some of the sources listed are from the past when he used that last name. I say this is a keep. Llbb454 (talk) 07:24, 2 February 2015 (UTC)Llbb454[reply]

Weak Delete. Minor appearances on cable 'reality' shows and bit parts elsewhere; nominally failing WP:ENT at present. Pax 01:38, 11 February 2015 (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 Texas A&M University. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:01, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Texas A&M College of Liberal Arts

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

Another non-notable individual school (sure, "college"). Whatever is verified and relevant here can be put in the main article, but there is nothing in the article that suggests this is notable and would pass the GNG. Drmies (talk) 03:59, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 05:10, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:50, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge selectively to Texas A&M University. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:51, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:58, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:24, 2 February 2015 (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. Consensus herein is for article retention. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:55, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Khaled Idris Bahray

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

A tragic loss of life no matter who the culprit is, but still, the only reason the murder gained press attention was social media and advocacy group speculation linking it to Pegida. At the moment, the man who admitted to the crime is a fellow Eritrean, but it is still WP:TOOSOON to assert that this murder will be remembered in 5, 10, 20 years if the courts find this man guilty - the killing of one person by somebody they knew is generally not notable. It may be appropriate to summarise the episode in the PEGIDA article, but of course to state who the eventual culprit is if it is not a PEGIDA member - avoiding doing so could bring libel charges as obviously, murder is gravely serious '''tAD''' (talk) 15:49, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This case is remarkable, because:

the general xenophobic situation in Dresden
the sloppy investigations of police (just started 30 hour after the murder) in a case with an refugee involved
the conditions of refugee housing in Dresden
the reaction of public on the murder (criminal charges of obstruction of justice, demonstrations, candlelight vigils, ...)

This article was discussed a lot in the german WP and finally remains. --Schwijker (talk) 11:47, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's undeniable that there is a xenophobic atmosphere in Dresden, and that may be a topic for an article in itself, but for how much it is xenophobic, that looks like it wasn't a motive for this murder. But of course, I opened this discussion to hear the views of other people. '''tAD''' (talk) 12:31, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

in the meantime there was a huge media coverage, also international, and lots of demonstrations.Alice d25 (talk) 15:04, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

and, tAD, yout text above is totally not up to date. Alice d25 (talk) 15:13, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In German article we had the same demand for deletion. Relevance comes not from the incident itself, but the "instrumentalization" by organizations and the press to put fingers in a xenophobia problem of PEGIDA what needs evidence, because its not clear. And the fact is, that all these actions are based on wrong facts. The deletion was rejected because of the need for documentation of this instrumentalization - as a political scandal. So it may be only relevant in Germany. But the lesson for all is: Criticism of political opponents should not be based on lies. Probably you have also better known examples for this :-) --Brainswiffer (talk) 06:23, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This description brainswiffer gives is wrong. It might show his personal interests. Despite the "wrong" assumptions (and there are a lot of reasons for these assumptions, see [13]) of a rascist background of the murder, the above facts given by Schwijker were the reasons for keeping in the german WP. As the discussion of the page shows, there are also very few sources, that show an instrumentalization of the case (which in my pov means accusing PEGIDA protesters). After the discussion cooled down, the keeping of the article showed the opportunity of Wikipedia to give a clarifying and neutral perspective on that topic.-- Amtiss, SNAFU ? 11:48, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But there is no (NO) connection between this single case of murdering (free from any racism) and any other cases of racism inclusive instrumentaisation of this case (Because of the last we will keep it in German WP as a demand for no lies). --Brainswiffer (talk) 13:23, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you like to look for yourself, see the decision description at the end of de:Wikipedia:Löschkandidaten/15._Januar_2015#Todesfall_Khaled_Idris_Bahray_.28bleibt.29 (post from 01:41, 23. Jan. 2015 (CET)) -- Amtiss, SNAFU ? 14:23, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Great :-) I also am for Keep - because the decision in German for Keeping: "daß der Fall als Paradebeispiel für ein reflexhaftes Vorgehen und Vorverurteilung zeitüberdauernd rezipiert wird" translated: because this case is a prime example for a reflexive approach and a prejudgement (f.e. of PEGIDA) - a time-enduring reflection. --Brainswiffer (talk) 15:01, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I said: it's your personal interest or better POV: on the german article page, nearly no source show the direct accusation of Pegida. Instead most of the sources talk about a xenophobic atmosphere. The Pegida demonstrators do cherry-picking of the media to find something against themselves, they want to feel accused, although the main German media reaction looks diverse and different. (It might be different in the international media. Take care about that when working on the article). I vote instead to have a look at the FAZ report about how the culprit used the situation in Dresden and influenced the media itself. Translation help can be given. (Brainswiffer has earned monthly AIVs in German WP in 2014. As he has rarely been blocked and not in 2014, this only shows that he works in a controversial way, keep that in mind.) --Amtiss, SNAFU ? 16:54, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

how would it be possible to keep a lie? You try to show it. Your mask is not very camouflaged :-) in German WP you have no chance for your view. Hope also here. But the message is: there is no connection between this case and any racist speculations. The murder itself tried to put it in this direction. Look for other examples for your POV. --Brainswiffer (talk) 07:02, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a subject that is "notable in Germany" is also notable for a Wikipedia article. An AfD discussion should npot be open just to get feedbakc on an article. Bring that up on the talk page.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:42, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the crime has had significant impact as witnessed by the extensive coverage, both domestically in Germany and internationally. Vrac (talk) 14:01, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:23, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, when 3 things are more clear in article (like in german article now):

There is NO relation between this single case and ANY evidence for racist/xenophobic activities in Dresden/at PEGIDA/in Germany.
This may exist, but unfortunately there was a political "instrumentalization" of this single case before it was known who really killed him
His murder is a flatmate, also from Eritrea (arrested, DNS, confession). Unfortunately he also carried the speculations about the xenophobic background actively.
Keeping here like in German WP) would be an example that the truth can overtake any political instrumentalisation --Brainswiffer (talk) 13:03, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 00:25, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 00:25, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sources indicate notability. Please don't waste time by nominating articles on notable subjects. Everyking (talk) 23:24, 8 February 2015 (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. Anyone feeling inclined to merge is of course welcome to do so. Stifle (talk) 11:38, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ASU College of Liberal Arts and Sciences

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

I do not believe such individual schools (sure, "colleges") are independently notable. First of all, if there is relevant, verified, non-directory style content, it can easily be inserted in the main article. Second, this article has nothing at all in terms of content, and no suggestion that it would even pass basic requirements of GNG. Finally, looking at the template and at related articles like Barrett, The Honors College, I wonder if this isn't part of a rather concerted effort at promoting ASU. Drmies (talk) 03:57, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Yngvadottir (talk) 14:11, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 14:49, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge selectively to Arizona State University. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:02, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:58, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:23, 2 February 2015 (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). NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:51, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nitai Pons Pérez

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

Doesn't meet notability guidelines pertinent to a musician under WP:GNG, WP:BIO, or WP:NMUSIC. Only 88 Google hits for "Nitai Pons", generally from social media and coverage of local events, no substantive coverage. —Largo Plazo (talk) 02:46, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 03:28, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:57, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Skr15081997 (talk) 15:45, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Skr15081997 (talk) 15:45, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:23, 2 February 2015 (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. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:46, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Angel Clark

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

Radio personality biography. I cannot find much/anything written about this person in reliable secondary sources. There are some primary sources provided, to blogs or sites associated with her radio show/employer and other trivial mentions on google. However, that doesn't meet WP:GNG. Gaff (talk) 00:38, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 14:51, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 14:51, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 14:51, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:25, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:21, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Run of the mill political activist, with no clear demonstration of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:45, 3 February 2015 (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 Miss Minnesota USA. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 00:54, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Carrie Lee

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

So she won a contest once, and got engaged years ago. Notability for a single event. Major editors of the page are all banned socks. This diff illustrates why imposing wikipedia pages on non-notable people is a bad idea. Legacypac (talk) 00:34, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 14:52, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 14:52, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 14:52, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 14:52, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is exactly why such barely-notables are not great article subjects. At the very least why can't they be in a very basic list of title holders with the barest minimum of details? Mabalu (talk) 17:11, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:23, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:20, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Miss Minnesota USA, same as the outcomes of two other very recent Afds of mid-level beauty pageant winners. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:33, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no evidence of notability, Personally see no point in redirecting as I think Miss Minnesota USA will end up being deleted soon. –Davey2010^Talk 21:28, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Miss Minnesota USA. Notability is possible, but unproven. That doesn't mean Lee can't be covered in a broader article, though. About one paragraph would be appropriate weight at Miss Minnesota USA. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:16, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Miss Minnesota USA. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:37, 9 February 2015 (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). NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:29, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sharon Maas

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

No indication of notability. Was once a journalist for a Guyanese newspaper and has written four books for which the notability is not asserted. No awards listed, etc. The only references are to her own web page and to "www.themisathena.info". Fails WP:AUTHOR/WP:JOURNALIST. Bueller 007 (talk) 00:28, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 14:53, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 14:53, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:47, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:23, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:20, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep To avoid cultural bias, we rightly accord some degree of tolerance to relatively poorly sourced articles dealing with areas were our usual sources are scarce and information harder to document. Tho this is not unlimited, the present career would seem to fall into what would be notability anywhere. The authorship of books that have been translated into multiple other languages is characteristic of a notable author. According to Worldcat, her most widely held book is is 214 libraries [14], and she has 2 others in more than 100.This is very respectable for an author fro this area,considering almost all Worldcat libaries are in the Angloamerican culture area. I think she does intact meet NAUTHOR. DGG ( talk ) 09:01, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:40, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ryhaan Shah

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

Multiple issues listed for >1 year. No real indication of notability. Was apparently listed as one of the "500 Most Influential Muslims in the World" in 2009, though the position on the list (and the notability of the list) are not stated. This Wikipedia article contains more info about that list than it does about her. No indication that she passes WP:AUTHOR. Bueller 007 (talk) 22:26, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:15, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:48, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – No coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 11:45, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:09, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject probably has some notability from political activities of about ten years ago, as a campaigner for Guyanese of Indian descent. However, reliable sources for this would probably be largely Guyanese and offline. But her main claim to notability is almost certainly for her novelsr which, although published in Britain and getting some international attention, seem most definitely notable in Guyana - I have found some apparently reliable Guyanese references and added them to the article but, from other experience, would expect there to be rather more offline. So, to avoid systemic bias, even if the references I have managed to add are still slightly fewer than we might wish, I think we can assume notability on the basis of what we have. PWilkinson (talk) 22:32, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:12, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:16, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep – The subject meets point #3 of WP:AUTHOR. Source examples include: [15], [16], [17]. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:27, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) --L235 (talk) As a courtesy, please ping me when replying. 02:22, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jagdish Rai Singh

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

Appears to have been a finalist in the American Movie Awards (the significance of which is not established, since they were only reestablished in 2014), but other than that, there is no notability asserted. References provided are blog links. Other than that, it's just a bio, a list of works, and links to his personal websites. Bueller 007 (talk) 22:39, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:14, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:14, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:48, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – No coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 11:44, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:11, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:16, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: While suffering the common dilemma of 21st century authors that the established press no longer reviews books that much, the fact that his material has been able to establish and retain multiple-copy presence in large libraries suggests a degree of notability. Pax 01:54, 11 February 2015 (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--Ymblanter (talk) 07:46, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clem Seecharan

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

Multiple issues for >1 year. Based on the notability that is (not) established in the current article, he clearly fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:ACADEMIC. Bueller 007 (talk) 22:41, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:13, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:13, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:13, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:48, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – No coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 11:44, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:11, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:15, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Borderline keep A expectable number of books, although few of them are in more than 100 libraries. If one defines his field narrowly enough, he may well be a major expert within it. The argument of avoiding systematic bias is relevant: it does little harm to keep borderline notable articles as compared with the harm from not covering areas where usable sources are harder to find. DGG ( talk ) 01:29, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I think this policy should be considered when nominating an article for deletion. The subject of the article appears to have met the inclusion criteria. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 17:55, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 11:38, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Judaman Seecoomar

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

Very longstanding issues with the article. Clearly does not meet WP:ACADEMIC or WP:AUTHOR. Appears to have taught school for a little while, finished his PhD on his deathbed, and published a book for which no notability is asserted. The only reference is an obituary. Bueller 007 (talk) 22:22, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:18, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:48, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – No coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 11:46, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. This seems to be one of a number of Guyanese-related AfDs which the nominator has posted fairly rapidly in the wake of WP:Articles for deletion/Dennis Adonis, some of which seem to have suffered slightly from haste. In this case, schoolteaching seems not to have been done just for "a little while" but to have been his main adult career (not that the schoolteaching seems to have much relevance to his notability), and the PhD was finished and the book based on it published several years before his death - hew was, in fact, finishing a second book at the time of his death (and the books do seem to be the main claim to notability. The obituary used as a reference (which I added to the article a year or so back) is from The Guardian - and if, as in this case, an obituary in a major newspaper is more than a couple of paragraphs, that in itself is quite a strong indicator of likely notability. There are also some strong indications (for instance, this review of the second book in a Guyanese newspaper) of the books getting substantial notice in Guyana - considering the apparent difficulty of finding Guyanese sources online (and consequent systemic bias), I would tend to consider the obituary and the book review taken together as just about enough to establish notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PWilkinson (talk • contribs) 20:58, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:10, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:15, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have supported keeping most of the related AfD nominations, but I do not support this one. While we extend a considerable tolerance to relatively poorly sourced natural from countries where we have difficult getting the sort of good sources we hope for, this is not unlimited. In this case, the career seems to indicate that there are not likely to be any good sources, whether the career were in Guyana our anywhere else. I think the relevant rule is NOT MEMORIAL. DGG ( talk ) 08:54, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Moments ago I voted 'Keep' on the Jagdish Rai Singh AfD on the basis of the Toronto Public Library (a pretty massive one) retaining multiple copies of his different works; a similar search there for Judaman Seecoomar reveals only one work. I would like to imagine that he's notable (even if only in Guyana), but the article is nearly useless at present and nothing would be lost in seeing it go. Pax 02:03, 11 February 2015 (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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 03:58, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Narmala Shewcharan

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

Multiple issues that have persisted for years. Appears to have been nominated for a national award (but lost) and won another far less important one. No indication that this individual meets WP:AUTHOR or WP:ACADEMIC Bueller 007 (talk) 22:18, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:20, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:20, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:49, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Apart from the national award nomination, there is no coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 11:47, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This seems to be one of a number of Guyanese-related articles which the nominator has fairly rapidly put up for deletion in the wake of WP:Articles for deletion/Dennis Adonis, and I am wondering just how much care, at least for some of these subsequent nominations, they put into WP:BEFORE - the lack of which is likely to aggravate an existing problem of systemic bias with regard to coverage of Guyana on Wikipedia, rather sharply brought into focus by the fact that, at the time of nomination, this article contained twice as many references (albeit not used for inline citations) as the articles on Guyana's prime minister (since 1992) and president combined. As to the existing references - I don't have the access immediately available to confirm for certain that they refer to the subject in depth, and two of the six seem to be to student dissertations. But of the other four, one is an academic book from a reputable publisher and two are articles in peer-review academic journals; and I have managed to add an inline reference to another academic article that seems to discuss one of the subject's books in some depth. PWilkinson (talk) 18:50, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:09, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:14, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The argument of avoiding systematic bias is relevant: it does little harm to keep borderline notable articles as compared with the harm from not covering areas where usable sources are harder to find. DGG ( talk ) 01:29, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I think this policy should be considered when nominating an article for deletion. The subject of the article appears to have met the inclusion criteria. With a quick google search, I found this notable novel, [18], [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] among others. I respect DGG (talk · contribs) view on systemic bias. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 15:27, 7 February 2015 (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. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 14:50, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Allentown Fire Department

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

Non-notable fire company. No reliable third party sources given. Tinton5 (talk) 21:29, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:56, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge selectively to Allentown, Pennsylvania – Fire Department. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:56, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this article needs to be merged into the Allentown article. I would just delete this and leave the Allentown article as is. There is no need to include the level of detail given here on the Allentown page Monopoly31121993 (talk) 21:28, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the detail in the article, my !vote is for a selective merge, not a full merge. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:35, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete it's just a list of facts about a non notable fire company Deunanknute (talk) 06:14, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:09, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:08, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:14, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It seems easy to find sources about this topic such as Allentown: The Story Of A Pittsburgh Neighborhood; Living in the Allentown Area; Souvenir History of the Allentown Fire Department; Historic homes and institutions and genealogical and personal memoirs of the Lehigh Valley, Pennsylvania, &c. Andrew D. (talk) 12:37, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources cited above are either not reliable (not from an established publisher) or don't discuss the topic in sufficient detail. It's easy enough to find mentions of any fire department in a book or newspaper or two - this does not constitute significant coverage. And all the sources currently used in the article are primary. Nwlaw63 (talk) 17:59, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's easy to find coverage of such historic fire departments in books and newspapers because they are notable. The sources above look just fine to me but, if you don't care for those, it's easy to find more including, The Firehouse: an architectural and social history; Past, Present, and Future of the City of Allentown, PA; Statistics of Fire Departments of Cities Having a Population of Over 30,000; Fire and Water Engineering; Men of Allentown; Allentown, Pa. Bicentennial, 1962; &c. Andrew D. (talk) 23:50, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Significant coverage does not constitute a line or two here and there or a few statistics. It's in-depth, substantial coverage, none of which this is. Nwlaw63 (talk) 07:24, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is extensive material out there which easily passes WP:SIGCOV. This subject has existed for over two hundred years and so, as a topic, it is far more weighty and substantial than Nwlaw63's own work such as Where White Men Fear to Tread. Andrew D. (talk) 08:36, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This is a terrible catalog of hardware. I suspect the fire company is itself notable if anyone was inclined to research the history and source it out. I'd be amenable to a TNT solution here, since just about every syllable needs to go away from a truly encyclopedic piece. Carrite (talk) 20:55, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The word "encyclopedic" is just another way of saying I don't like it. It seems likely that many readers are quite interested in the details of fire fighting equipment. But if you think the current content is dull, then you should try browsing the sources. For example, the book Ice Diving Operations tells us that "Members of the Allentown Fire Department in Pennsylvania use Dr. Scholl's inserts in the bottom of their drysuit boots. The inserts definitely keep feet warmer and protected..." The book Past, Present, and Future of the City of Allentown tells us that "...it was in 1811 that the law authorized our first fire ladders." The journal Fire Engineering explains that "The Allentown Fire Department uses the following insignia: Chief, five gold horns on cap and coat lapels; deputy chief, four gold horns ...". There is clearly a huge quantity of detail out there and people who aren't interested in it should just move along to something that they do care about. In Carrite's case, that includes "Pumpkin farmers, peanut vendors" and the wonderfully named "boring from within". There's no accounting for taste.... Andrew D. (talk) 00:11, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Insulting the interests of other editors isn't an argument, and appears to violate WP:CIVIL. Nwlaw63 (talk) 15:10, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I applaud Carrite's catholic tastes rather than insulting them. I had supposed that he spent all his time on pioneers of socialism, who seemed too dry and dull for my taste, and so I'm pleased that he's covering other types of topic too. My point is that we all tend to differ in our appreciation of such things and I reckon that fire fighting equipment is more exciting than most. Now, insofar as Carrite has recommended any particular course of action, it's WP:TNT — destroying the page in order to rebuild it. Blowing things up isn't policy though and our actual editing policy is to make bold changes of that sort using ordinary editing rather than deletion, so that the edit history is preserved and we can refer back to earlier versions as needed. Andrew D. (talk) 17:39, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 11:37, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Rice

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

Only really notable for staring in a TV ad in the 80's, fails WP:NACTOR and WP:BLP1E JMHamo (talk) 21:11, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:24, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:24, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:24, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. His roles in Trollied and Massive (TV series) are both significant and both series are bluelinked. He also has coverage in Shennan, Paddy (3 September 2013), "Boy from The White Stuff; Paddy Shennan talks to the actor who made his TV debut as a pint-sized Reds' fan", Liverpool Echo and Kendall, Paul (18 January 2009), "addendum whatever happened to... the boy from the milk advert", Sunday Telegraph Magazine 'Seven'. There still talking about that Milk Marketing Board commercial in 2013 (around 25 years later) so it's not exactly low profile. Article does need a major overhaul. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:24, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:08, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no evidence of notability, Both cites are not sufficient enough, He may have appeared in several programmes but that doesn't grant you an article, No sources = No article. –Davey2010^Talk 01:26, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:13, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No objection to providing content for the purpose of drafting a better article; such requests should be filed at WP:REFUND Stifle (talk) 14:55, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

QuestionPro.com

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

Out of the sources in the current article, those provided on Talk, and those tracked by the company itself[27], none of them are in-depth profiles in credible independent sources. Some of them are published in established media outlets, but are blogs, columns, guest pieces or brief mentions. It's highly unlikely that a 50-person organization would be notable and the quality of sources available does not pass WP:CORP. CorporateM (Talk) 18:35, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 18:45, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:05, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:05, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am not sure whether this article should be judged as being about an organization or a product. While the very first version of this had it as being about the company, and while the company itself is now treating it on the talk page as though it should be about the company, it has been phrased as being about the product since the end of the original creator's edits. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:49, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:I appreciate this article being reviewed. I have been wanting to expand this based on contributions from other editors. NatGertler, the article is about the company QuestionPro, however the company's flagship product is also named as QuestionPro, which is mentioned in the article. QuestionPro's notability can be said to be field specific. DIY research is a niche field hence most notable references of it appear on market research related websites and on websites of universities who use the software for their research. Besides this there are a few references to QuestionPro on the websites of notable newspapers / third party reviewers and noted universities. 2 references to university websites and mainstream newspaper 'Seattle times' are provided original. Here are 3 more references a known third party media site, a known market research related third party site and science daily, another third party site:

Online survey software company QuestionPro has acquired former EvoNexus company and micro survey platform RapidEngage http://finance.yahoo.com/news/online-survey-software-company-questionpro-160000862.html Survey Analytics Debuts Multiple Niche Panel Network http://www.mrweb.com/drno/news12596.htm http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090119210532.htm "Experts in academia and government research centers were e-mailed invitations to participate in the on-line poll conducted by the website questionpro.com. Only those invited could participate and computer IP addresses of participants were recorded and used to prevent repeat voting." Unitedopinions (talk) 21:24, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As currently presented, the article is about the software, not the company. The subject sentence is "QuestionPro or QuestionPro.com[2] is online survey software that allows users to create, publish and distribute online surveys and analyze the results." The one subsection is "Features", which discusses features of the software, not features of the company. What is being analyzed (and proposed for deletion here) seems to be the idea of transforming an article about a product into an article about a company. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:54, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If the company is notable, but the product isn't, we can always rename and do some copyediting. The outcome of an AfD discussion can be whatever we want it to be (merge, rename, delete but with a caveat that a company article can be made, etc.) However, given that it has 55 employees and is engaged in a fairly routine type of business, it seems unlikely that either the product or the company is notable. CorporateM (Talk) 22:10, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On second thoughts, I feel the notability of QuestionPro as a software is more than that of QuestionPro as a company. Because all the university websites which talk about QuestionPro, are interested in QuestionPro the software platform, not the company. Similarly all the announcements about the software such as SurveySwipe and SurveyPocket to be used in conjunction are about being in conjunction with QuestionPro the software platform, not the company. I think if the article can be accommodated, it should be about the software, not the company. Company info could be provided as supplementary info as the developer. How could this be done. What references are invalid in this case and what new kind of references would be required? I now realize that probably some links are talking about QuestionPro the company but those are given in external links as additional info. Is the infobox template incorrect for it being a software? Thanks. Unitedopinions (talk) 12:07, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - narrowing this down to looking at it as a software product, I'm not seeing the establishment of notability, at least in the provide references. The closest we come is the NIH article, which is only a couple paragraphs worth of information. The Shoestring Venture reference is not only really just two paragraphs, and the publisher is listed as iUniverse. which means this is a self-published book. The U Of Iowa link is dead, and from the excerpt seems unlikely to show much significance anyway. So no, we're not seeing the sort of in-depth coverage from significant sources that we would want to see for a product. That isn't to say that this couldn't be recast as an article on the organization, but as others are indicating, there's not much sign of the expected level of notability there, either. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:54, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:06, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:13, 2 February 2015 (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. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:15, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pete Davis

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

This title was deleted several years ago. I think this person existed, but can't find any reliable sources quickly on him, just wiccan blogs repeating his obituary.If not delete again, perhaps merge anything that can be reliably sourced with Aquarian Tabernacle Church which he seems to have founded and redirect this title there? Legacypac (talk) 06:29, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a search for "Peter Pathfinder Davis" brings up a lot more results, especially Google Books results. He founded a legally-recognised church with congregations in a number of other countries. I'd think that's enough for WP:ANYBIO#2. His written works are cited, though not extensively, by other authors (though admittedly only in specific fields). I'm inclined to think that what's there might be enough to get this past WP:GNG but I'm probably not 100%. Between the two, I think he gets there. St★lwart¹¹¹ 08:11, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple versions of his name are an issue. I found almost nothing with name I found in the article, had to fix a spelling error to get more results. Note there are zero sources in the article. Legacypac (talk) 08:54, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, Legacypac; I tried a few different combinations based on other sources I found before I found those search terms and those sources. You weren't wrong to bring it here. St★lwart¹¹¹ 22:12, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Found several published encyclopedia entries on Pete Davis as well as a taped interview with him. They've been added to the references list on the page.Lunireal (talk) 22:54, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps to get past the multiple versions of the name problem we can title the page "Pete (Pathfinder) Claveloux Davis" which was his full name. He was the founder of the worlds largest Wiccan church that is now recognized in eight different countries. And therefore in my opinion deserves a wikipedia page.2601:8:9C80:25B:C4D6:7A90:CED0:DEFF (talk) 03:38, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:15, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:15, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:15, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:04, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:10, 2 February 2015 (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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 03:58, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Richard L. Dowhower

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

Non-notable pastor and religious scholar. Does not meet WP:BIO and does not meet WP:NACADEMICS. Tgeairn (talk) 00:58, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I found a couple of books with a single paragraph each discussing his work, and also a mention in a journal, but all of these combined are insufficient to meet WP:BASIC.- Mr X 02:05, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet author or academic standards for notability. There is some brief discussion of the article subject in a couple of books and a newspaper I found, but it comes nowhere near significant coverage. Nwlaw63 (talk) 19:30, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not notable as a scholar or expert (unlike, say Walter Ralston Martin). Perhaps surprisingly, he hasn't got an academic position or written a major book. St Anselm (talk) 05:03, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Testifying to a couple of legislatures and being a pastor are neither of them enough for notability. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:23, 8 February 2015 (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. It's pretty clear what the consensus is here. However I am happy to move the article to user space so that it can be developed. JodyB_talk 22:35, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

World's First Nuclear Power Generated Electricity Used A Jensen 50 Steam Engine

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

This article reads too much like an essay and contains original research about the subject. The references do not indicate notability or provide enough context about the article. ~~JHUbal27 00:57, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - ~~Wrongly wikified.~~ Fails WP:GNG. --ToonLucas22 (talk) 14:25, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That is not a valid reason for deletion. Please try to make relevant comments. --ThaddeusB (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:57, 3 February 2015

Delete - It's little more than argumentation and original research. I don't see a coherent notable topic, nor does the content seem to be salvageable for merging into an existing article. WP:NUKEANDPAVE.- Mr X 02:14, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:OR, WP:NN. --L235 (talk) As a courtesy, please ping me when replying. 03:50, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Delete as essay per WP:BLOWITUP. Not sure what it's supposed to be. The title is certainly not WP:NPOV. — kikichugirl ^speak up! 03:55, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to X-10 Graphite Reactor and delete. ~~Userfy~~ – As the world's first nuclear power generator it's historically significant and not Original Research because most of the statements are based on the newspaper article. I formatted the references (very roughly) and added a link to the original newspaper story. I think this should be userfied. He's a new editor and was trying to add this information by creating an article. What he needs is help to introduce himself on the Talk page of a relevant article, so the editors there can help him get this information into the encyclopedia. He's getting some help about that already on his talk page, so I think what we should do is put this article in draft space, somewhere that other editors can find it. – Margin1522 (talk) 09:29, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since it looks like most !votes can't get past the title and the article is going to be deleted, I have changed my !vote to merge. I think it can be inserted with not too much modification into X-10 Graphite Reactor. Then other articles on nuclear power can be updated as necessary. To facilitate the merge, I have added the newspaper story as an inline cite. There was also a transcript of the oral history interview cited in the newspaper article. I added that as well as an inline cite.– Margin1522 (talk) 23:00, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Doesn't seem to be salvageable. Possibly to be archived under "What not to name your article?" - J man708 (talk) 10:50, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't delete and please do help me get this right.

It is important history and should be shared.

Thank you very much to editor Margin1522. I very much appreciate your help with some useful editing and suggestions. You are correct saying this is historically significant.

I will add that I do not understand why the words "original research" and "too much like an essay" are problems. My research came right from the horses mouth. I drove over 1700 miles round trip to do a fair bit of this research at the X-10 Graphite Reactor in Oak Ridge. Some of the information was also gathered at the website of the American Museum of Science and Energy in Knoxville, TN, the city next to Oak Ridge, TN.

What is with user editor NUKEANDPAVE saying this info is argumentation??? It is real history and ought to be properly recorded as so far it has been incorrectly recorded for many years.

This reminds me I also have some new photos of this old steam engine and generator. It might be nice to add some of the 1948 photos and one or two new ones to this article. If you watch the video you will see 3 of the most significant 1948 photos and there is one more, They can all be seen (1948 photos) on the link provided that takes you to a long list of photos along with text from the American Museum of Science and Energy describing the photos and clearly stating this was all done in 1948.

Regards, Gil Reddrryder (talk) 19:10, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Reddrryder: I know very little on the topic, but I do believe you when you say that this is of historical significance. I'm not question whether this information should be on Wikipedia, especially if it assists the general populace of readers. The issue at hand is that the quality of this article doesn't conform with Wikipedia's standards and requirements of what an article should be. For instance, the title is far too long and far too precise to be utilised in an Encyclopedia. Perhaps this could be listed somewhere in this article/subheading here? The title needs to be consise, whereas the title of this article sounds like a paragraph. It's kinda like calling an article "That guy who was born in Lebanon and was from that movie with the time machine and the other movie with the bus, you know? It's just not quite right.

Secondly, your information (while again, I'll take your word on to be accurate and of significance), doesn't contain any references showing the evidence of where about a specific piece of information came from. It's kinda like how in the Bible, people say that it mentions that people shouldn't be gay. What Wikipedia requires is that we must link them to the specific chapter of the book, or page, or whatever, so that the reader doesn't have to spend hours finding this information. Also, as with the above mentioned sentence, a lot of things can be touchy subjects, so Wikipedia must be 100% factual, but mustn't take sides.

Perhaps you may want to write up an article within your own Sandbox, where it won't be deleted and you can add to it as slowly or as quickly as you please. When you feel that it is ready, then you can ask for some peer reviews and see if others think it is ready to go live. Good luck! - J man708 (talk) 21:06, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment re title - Ive reinstated the correct title as I nearly ended up closing this discussion! (I assumed the page had been deleted turns out it wasn't!), If you wanna shorten a title please use [[FULL ARTICLE NAME|SHORTENED ONE]] as that way it becomes shortened and is also not redlinked and please state the shortening on the AFD, Thank you. –Davey2010^Talk 21:43, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Davey2010, could you or someone else who knows how please shorten the title for me by removing the words "Used A Jensen 50 Steam Engine".

Regards and thank you in advance, Gil Reddrryder (talk) 22:03, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean having a different article title you would need to visit WP:Requested moves and follow the instructions there, Changing the title on this AFD solves nothing unfortunately, Cheers, –Davey2010^Talk 22:10, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Davey2010 Question for you: Is it better to remove this article completely and start over with the correct title?
Also, how do I start getting e-mail notification again when someone tries to help me or delete me? I was getting notices the first day or two but not so anymore.

Thank you Reddrryder (talk) 23:04, 2 February 2015 (UTC) Gil[reply]

Whilst the page is involved with AFD discussions, I doubt that the page will be moved. As I said earlier, "Perhaps you may want to write up an article within your own Sandbox", before creating a live article, which gives you the chance to get feedback. I strongly suggest this. Also, to get someone's attention, type {{ping|Username}}, in order to notify them of your response, like so - @Reddrryder: - J man708 (talk) 00:46, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No deleting and rewriting with the correct title is quite frankly stupid.... As I said go to WP:RM and follow all that (Although you should use Requested moves once this AFD's finished!), As for the email notifs - Sorry no idea ... you probably have to disable a setting somewhere in your preferences. –Davey2010^Talk 02:22, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - My understanding is that the author of this article is trying to say that the claim:

Electricity was generated for the first time by a nuclear reactor on December 20, 1951, at the EBR-I experimental station...

in the final paragrpah of Nuclear_power#Origins is wrong because the X-10_Graphite_Reactor produced electricity three years earlier. If that is true, then we should correct the Nuclear Power, EBR-I and X-10_Graphite_Reactor articles with properly sourced information. That would make this article unnecessary and suitable for deletion. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 06:57, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Basically I am agreeing with that, but there is the matter of assigning proper credit in the article history. Since Reddrryder wrote the text and discovered the sources, it seems like his name should appear in the history of whatever article becomes the destination for this information. – Margin1522 (talk) 23:00, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge per Athomeinkobe. —George8211 / T 20:11, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - First: this needs to be deleted as a POV original essay. That said, the information here may or may not be usable in Nuclear power#History under "Origins," based upon what the actual scholarly sources say. Just because the article currently says "1951" doesn't mean that it is necessarily right. Not my area of expertise, but let's be sure we get it right. Carrite (talk) 21:11, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Reddrryder: Wikipedia doesn't decide what is or is not correct history, we simply report what the consensus of reliable sources say. The problem with your article is that it is essentially an attempt by you to say accepted history is wrong. What we can do is say Oak Ridge National Laboratory (which would be the best place for a merge) attached a "toy engine" that demonstrated nuclear power was possible (consistent with published sources). What we can't do is say that was really the world's first nuclear power generation (not sufficiently supported by RS). Hopefully you understand what I mean. If you think you can rewrite your materially neutrally, I encourage you to try to insert it directly into the Oak Ridge article. If you don't think you can do that or don't understand what I mean, let me know and I will do it. (You doing it is preferable for copyright reasons.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:52, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@ThaddeusB:,
I am not attempting to say anything that isn't true. What I am saying is true and backed up by records, text, photographic archives, and other materials on hand at the Oak Ridge National Labs, home of the X-10 Graphite Reactor. Let me put it this way: I am not attempting to say accepted history is wrong because I have already said it and the records of work performed at Oak Ridge back this up.
I am not understanding (not sufficiently supported by RS).
If you want to get the article or whatever you prefer to call it into the X-10 Graphite Reactor page, that might be a real good idea as I do not know how to get anything like that done. I am clearly not qualified to be an editor here (not even a little bit) but I do have some historically significant information that ought to be properly shared.
You mentioned you "could say they attached a "toy engine". This by itself falls far short of the actual accomplishment. The scientists and engineers at Oak Ridge were clearly on the cutting edge of nuclear power generation technology. In order to "attach the toy steam engine" they designed engineered and built a miniature boiling water reactor completely piped up to a complete and rather sophisticated self regulating miniature steam plant utilizing a Jensen #50 steam engine and generator and hence created the world's first complete nuclear power plant, albeit a very small one. They inserted the small boiling water reactor which had 10 1"x 4" uranium slugs inside it into experiment port #60 on the second level of the working wall or experiment wall of the Graphite Reactor. The little Reactor was pushed inside to the core of the X-10 Graphite Reactor which had continuous nuclear fission. The small reactor was made of aluminum which allowed the high concentration of neutrons flying around inside the X-10 reactor to pass through to excite the uranium fuel slugs inside the little reactor causing nuclear fission and heat which turned the water into pressurized steam suitable for electric power generation. This miniature atomic power plant was operating and generating electricity on September 3, 1948 per records at ORNL.gov. There are links supplied with my article.
A quick word about the nature of the "toy" steam engine. It was actually a pretty sophisticated self-regulating model steam engine that is somewhat difficult to think of as merely a toy. Jensen Steam Engines began manufacturing the #50 steam engine in the late 1930's and it was never inexpensive enough to consider it a toy. When they stopped producing it in 1996, the price of this "toy steam engine" was $3,500.00 and it was $250.00 way back in 1948.
As for the December 1951 historical record claiming the world's first nuclear electricity generation at EBR-I in Idaho, that simply was never quite true. Of significance, that EBR-I project was the first to power a string of 4 full sized light bulbs and the next morning provided electric power for the entire building it was housed in. I have been told that it was agreed on back then that the EBR-I project would make the claim of the first ever nuclear power generation. EBR-I was the officially funded project to build an atomic power plant which to my understanding is why it was "agreed" they would be "allowed" to make the claim of first ever. All the while, the first ever nuclear power generation occurred just over 3 years earlier in Oak Ridge before the Idaho Project was built. In fact it was a full year before construction even started on EBR-I in late 1949.

If someone wants to pick up my work and do a good job with getting it published properly I am in favor of this as I said before I am not a wiki qualified editor. Perhaps the X-10 Wikipedia page is the place to start and you realize that at some point it might be a good idea to change the information on the EBR-I Arco, Idaho pages (which might ruffle a few feathers) or possibly add some sort of footnote. Either way, the team on the job at Oak Ridge, when the war was over, immediately began developing peacetime uses for nuclear fission and they had a lot of successes in addition to atomic power generated electricity.

Finally, I would like a better title such as "World's First Nuclear Power Generated Electricity" or "World's First Atomic Power Plant at Oak Ridge" or similar. Or it may not need a title if it is an add on to other pages or articles. Thank you for your consideration of my work. Gil Reddrryder (talk) 03:00, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete Please don't merge original research into other Wikipedia articles and don't keep original research on Wikipedia, that's not what an encyclopedia is. If the author wants to publish this somewhere, he or she is free to do so, but please not on Wikipedia. MicroPaLeo (talk) 10:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A blatant OR project. Pax 02:16, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

Documentary video of this story
Oak Ridger article, D. Ray Smith, Jan. 29, 2013
Reprint of The Oak Ridger article with a photograph of it producing electricity in 1948
Link to photos at ORNL
Image of first atomic power plant at X-10 Graphite Reactor, September 3, 1948. (ORNL)
Image of first atomic power plant at X-10 Graphite Reactor, September 3, 1948. (ORNL)
Image of toy engine that used heat from the Graphite Reactor to demonstrate that nuclear power could generate electricity, September 3, 1948. (ORNL)
Image of Logan Emlet of the Laboratory Operations Division inspecting the toy engine that used heat from the Graphite Reactor to demonstrate that nuclear power could generate electricity, September 3, 1948. (ORNL)
[IMG]http://i257.photobucket.com/albums/hh210/reddrryder/Worlds First Nuclear Electricity Generation Jensen/DSC_0881.jpg[/IMG] The Jensen 50 Steam engine and Generator used in the atomic power plant experiment as displayed today.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Reddrryder (talk • contribs) 12:19, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let me try to explain this again. It doesn't matter what is "true", it matters what the consensus of reliable sources say. Here the vast majority do not support the assertion that Oak Ridge created the first nuclear power. Wikipedia aims to summarize the world's knowledge, not conduct research on "what really happened".

Additionally, the information in question doesn't meet the standards for a stand-alone article. It can be included in some form in the X-10 Graphite Reactor page, the Oak Ridge article, and *maybe* in the nuclear history article, but there has not been sufficient attention paid to the "debate" (if I'm being kind, no real evidence that it is even debated) about what was the first nuclear power to warrant an article on the subject. You seem to agree that maybe the content should be moved to the X-10 page. I encourage you to go ahead and do that yourself, but if you want me to do it I can (it's just more complicated if I do it due to copyright reasons).

For future reference, you shouldn't copy and paste articles due to copyright reasons. It is OK here since you wrote it, but in general that is not something you should do. (See WP:Copying within Wikipedia for more information. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:32, 4 February 2015 (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] ttp://thrivegame.forum-free.ca/t1276-thrive-releases

[2] ttp://revolutionarygamesstudio.com/

[1]

[2]