Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 January 21

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 20 January	22 January >

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. MBisanz ^talk 00:01, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vanda Varvara

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

An IP contributor was recently blocked for some angrily-written speedy tags on this article, maintaining that it is a hoax, but, upon review, I have reason to believe that xe was indeed correct. The pictures are all of Alla Nazimova, all of the references and links that I checked were either internal errors [1] or entries on Mark Rothko [2] [3] [4], and all of the books that I checked do not appear to exist [5] [6] [7]. It's far too in-depth to not have any inline citations, and the claims to notability made in the lede seem completely fictitious ("...was a Russian–French–American painter who is considered to be the most influential female artist in the 20th century"). I've discussed this on IRC with several other editors, who generally agreed with me that this was probably a hoax, but not blatant enough to warrant G3 speedy deletion. Clearly something is fishy with it, and either I've encountered some statistical anomaly where every single source I checked came up empty, or we've just found List of hoaxes on Wikipedia's newest entry. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 23:55, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as G3. I understand that some are going to not feel this merits a speedy deletion, but after looking at the links provided, and Google searches on the books/her name not turning up anything at all credible, I believe this should just be speedied and done with. Absolutely none of the links claiming to be reviews of Varvara actually link to a review of her, i.e. they are dead links or another artist. Also, the pictures, as mentioned above, are of a completely different person. We may not like to admit it, but the wool has most definitally been pulled over our eyes here, and we need to own up and get this off of Wikipedia before more people see it.

Further information:

The two links to commons and wikiquote at the bottom should be ignored. There is absolutely nothing on those two sites that mentions her name, much less is in-depth about her.

The links provided all go to different artists/non-existant pages, which have never existed as far as I can ascertain from searching. Also, the sources provided in the form of books don't seem to exist, and those that do don't mention her at all, and are about other artists.

If she was really the most influential artist of the 20th century, don't you think you or I would have at least heard her name before? Or much less not been hearing others as being the most influential?

If this really merited an AfD, there would have to be some small hope that anything in the article was true. Heck, for me any assertion that she exists in any somewhat reliable source would be enough to make this fail G3. However, I don't see that. I don't see anything that makes any assertion at all that this is not something that is a G3 deletion, other than the fact that it has (per PA) been here for a year. Does having a user be here for a year prevent us from blocking them as a sock of another user? Nope. gwickwire^talk_edits 00:25, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Although this is a hoax, I believe that speedy deletion is inappropriate in this case because it is not a blatant hoax. Any article for which research is necessary to discover whether or not it is a hoax requires a consensus to delete. Dcoetzee 04:07, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I also suggested on #wikipedia-en on IRC when this issue was brought up by the nominator to CSD it. Now that I have been asked to comment here, the author's, User:AlaMenthe's first edit is in their userspace and is a complete draft with all the interwiki, all bogus, all nonexistent at Latin and Cyrylic-glyphed wikipedias and linking to Mark Rothko on Farsi, Chinese, Japanese, Hebrew, and Jiddish. Also, Mark Rothko's photograph is still in that edit, as is the caption describing him. This hoax is premeditated in that there exists a Russian painter of roughly similar profile and chronology, Varvara Stepanova (Russian, 1894–1958), as evidenced here on Museum of Modern Art's webpage: http://www.moma.org/collection/artist.php?artist_id=5643 . Of course the Wikiquote and Commonscat link templates are fake. The page never existed on Russian or French wikis, that's only place where I bothered to check. The first two book references and the publisher of the third are also fake. Lastly, anybody born in Russia would have a patronymic -- be on the lookout for that in the future. --Mareklug ^talk 00:41, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:00, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:00, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:00, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:00, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:00, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:00, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The images in this article are the most obvious fabrications. All three are of Alla Nazimova, and taken about 12 years prior to the dates stated in the article. Google Books has American abstract expressionism of the 1950s, and it does not contain the terms "Varvara", "Varvarra", or even "Vanda". The other books listed in sources cannot be found anywhere else on the Internet, and are probably fabricated. The interwiki links are dead, as are the commonscat and Wikiquotes links (their targets are not deleted - they never existed). As is typical for hoaxes, the creator User:AlaMenthe is a single purpose account that was already familiar with Wikipedia policies and vanished after writing it. The article appears to have been based in part on this revision of Mark Rothko, but with "Mark Rothko" replaced by "Vanda Varvara", as demonstrated by this sandbox edit and this duplication detector report. Some links like the "Vanda Varvara exhibition at Tate Modern, London, September 2008 – February 2009" still link to Mark Rothko's exhibitions. Grats to PinkAmpersand on spotting this one. Dcoetzee 04:28, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming that this AfD is closed as "delete", I'll file an SPI against the creator, since, as you said, xe clearly knew what xe was doing. I'm also slightly suspicious of the IP contributor who raised the issue initially (interspersed with pointless profanities), if only because it's been almost exactly a year since the article was created (and, indeed, if this AfD isn't closed early, the article will have existed for exactly a year and a day) - perhaps we're looking at a situation similar to Chen Fang, where the creator realizes xe'll never get any recognition if xe doesn't blow the whistle on xemself. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 05:45, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article superficially looks well written and well sourced, BUT it seems to be one of the greatest hoaxes I've come across. The image in the infobox is of Alla Nazimova and the homerun sources such as TIME and the Guardian are non-existent links. I looked into this artist's collect at the Tate and could not find anything. Google News Archives has no hit results. Mkdw ^talk 20:19, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pretty obviously it's a hoax. Just checked a few links, and they are either non-existent or link to something different. ~satellizer~~talk~ 23:10, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Drmies (talk) 03:04, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Katsube Keigaku

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

Reason: Delete per WP:BIO and WP:ACADEMIC. The page cites no sources whatsoever. Most references to Katsube Keigaku I've found searching the Internet have simply been obvious copy-pastes of this article. The only independent sources I've found discussing Katsube Keigaku explain his role as the teacher of Soen Nakagawa. While Soen Nakagawa is notable, teaching him isn't enough to merit one's own Wikipedia page. And I can't find any independent evidence of significant contributions by Katsube Keigaku to Zen Buddhism or Rinzai that would merit keeping under WP:BIO or WP:ACADEMIC. Imareaver (talk) 23:43, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:20, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:20, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:20, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I also found nothing except article mirrors and trivial mentions in sources discussing Soen Nakagawa. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 13:33, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is overwhelmingly to keep. That this is a BLP violation/attack article is not borne out by the actual article. Citation from the National Law Journal alone suggests notability, and coverage is widespread enough. Drmies (talk) 03:09, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Heymann

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

Per WP:ONEEVENT and WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. Heymann has not received enough significant coverage outside of the Aaron Swartz case to meet notability standards. Hirolovesswords (talk) 23:25, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. Jonathunder (talk) 23:32, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:32, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:32, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:32, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:32, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. You know, back in the day, when this site wasn't a worthless pile of crap, people would actually research articles like this to determine whether they had legitimate merit instead of going by how many times it has been updated. Now he's been linked to another hacker suicide since this nomination has been posted. He'll be household soon; he's certainly notable now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.30.100.251 (talk) 14:03, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Kinda embarrassing to be agreeing with the last bit of invective, but, stripped of the vitriol, 192.30.100.251 has a point. There should be enough coverage of other prosecutions, most especially the connection to another computer hactivist who committed suicide after being exposed to Mr. Heymann's tender prosecutorial mercies to make out WP:GNG. I think the right course here is to find them and flesh out the article, getting us past the WP:BLP1E threshhold, not delete the article aborning. David in DC (talk) 23:34, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The only significant coverage of other prosecutions by Heymann are the New York Times article on the Gonzalez case. All other articles only have one or two trivial mentions of Heymann, not enough to get past WP:BLP1E in my opinion. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 23:54, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So, he has significant coverage on the Gonzalez case, and he certainly has significant coverage on the Swartz case-- that's the ballgame-- not just one event. ---HectorMoffet (talk) 07:10, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's a point, but it's not the one you suggest. Let's take a look at the insertion of the supposed link to a previous suicide. In fact, Jonathan James committed suicide eight years after being sentenced in the case Heymann successfully prosecuted, and his suicide was related to new allegations of unrelated hacking. Nor is there a credible basis for your assertion that James was "hacktivist"--in the previous case he hacked into the Department of Defense and among other things stole control code for a space station, without any public interest that I can see; in the later case tied to his suicide he seems to have been linked to stealing TJ Maxx customer information. It's these sorts of assumptions (and you're not alone) that show that those voting to keep this article are in reality highly motivated to puff up perceived unfairness of treatment of Aaron Swartz, not to create a valid Wikipedia article on Stephen Heymann. 75.67.246.17 (talk) 16:25, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I also agree to KEEP, since this US Attorney has other controversial prosecutions. User:yogazeal —Preceding undated comment added 08:56, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject passes WP:BLP1E, as they were gaining coverage before the recent Swartz controversy. See the New York Times piece from 2010 which contains some biographical info, for example. Couple that with the sources about the Swartz case and he seems to qualify for an article. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 09:53, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
weak Keep. The AFD template was removed from the article for a period of 3 days, so it might be nice to extend the AfD review time. Assistant US Attorneys are by nature somewhat secretive, so it's hard to get a lot of information about them. While this might make them seem less notable than they otherwise might be, there's reason to think the press and the media are in the process of trying to find more information about Heymann, and that process is slow (certainly that's my direct experience). And while that doesn't directly relate to Wikipedia, and we don't expect original research to contribute to this article, I do think it means that there will be more sources available to flesh out this article in a month, at which point it'll be easier to judge the merits. The other problem is that there is currently a desire for people to know more about Heymann, and there isn't really another good place the Heymann-specific information. Carmen Ortiz is the wrong place, Aaron Swartz isn't really the right one, and United States v. Aaron Swartz is just a redirect right now, though that could easily change. jhawkinson (talk) 13:28, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep -- US Attorneys are notable as agents of government, RSes show at least two notable cases. --HectorMoffet (talk) 14:21, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Heymann is not a US Attorney. He is an assistant US attorney - a much less notable position. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 23:54, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, not just an Asst, he's Deputy Chief of Criminal Division. Mainly, he's had several high-profile cases and has gotten notability through news coverage of those various cases. --HectorMoffet (talk) 07:02, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deputy Chief of Criminal Division is pretty much just an Asst. Being Deputy Chief of Criminal Division does not make him or anyone else who holds that position notable. Also, I'm not sure what you mean by "several high-profile cases". Two is not several. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 13:16, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For clarity, he is no longer Deputy Chief, though he was ten years ago. Cf. talk. jhawkinson (talk) 20:51, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep --it is obvious that the United States Justice system has overreached in this case and this information is significant to the American public. To delete this item would go against everything that Wikipedia stands for. This is a high profile case and has received attention from The Rolling Stone, Huffington Post and others. Those looking to delete cannot hide the information already online regarding the overreach of the government in this case. This article should be expanded as more information is made available. To date there is a White House petition that has already been signed by over 47,000 United States Citizens in less than 10 days. --User:elogical1 (talk) 4:44, 25 January 2013 (CST)

Comment ~~I've added another source for the Gonzalez/Wall prosecution and~~ moved derogatory, sourced stuff out of the lede, per WP:UNDUE. There's a lot more out there, that's not Swartz-related. Please help rescue this article about this notable person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David in DC (talk • contribs) 13:38, 25 January 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't worry too much about it - it looks pretty likely to be kept now, in my opinion. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 15:12, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- we might revisit this in 12-18 months to see whether we change our minds, but right now it seems clear that he's a player in an ongoing controversy over computer crime that, while not limited to specific cases, has involved cases that are garnering very significant attention and that are likely to prove influential.MarkBernstein (talk) 17:22, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This page seems to be created and edited with the goal of character assassination. Heymann is not notable merely by being an assistant U.S. Attorney, nor is he notable by being involved with a notable case. Among the problems with keeping the article, the inclusion of a previous non-notable case in this bio piece has obviously only been made to suggest that Heymann causes people to commit suicide; and the voting system for keeping or deletion is broken with respect to this matter, due to the bias of many of those posting here related to this topic. For instance, note the comment by elogical1 above that "it is obvious that the United States Justice system has overreached in this case"; elogical1 cannot be dispassionate enough for a proper vote, due to the obvious motivation to soapbox about the Aaron Swartz case (which is notable enough but does not confer notability on all involved whenever Wikipedia editors simply want to attack them). HectorMoffet is highly involved in putting a pro-defense spin on the Aaron Swartz article, and here in his vote for keeping has misrepresented Heymann's notability: as another has noted, two is not "several", and prosecutors commonly do appear in news articles related to cases they prosecute, even relatively minor ones. The article itself is a thinly disguised attack piece. It suggests strongly that Heymann caused the death of Jonathan James, who committed suicide at age 24 after being sentenced at age 16. Under the biased logic of the contributors to the Heymann page, he will be subject to further attacks if anyone he's ever successfully prosecuted commits suicide at any future time, no matter how remote. It is also interesting that though James has his own page on Wikipedia, the link has been cleverly left out--as has the span of years between his case and his suicide--to suggest that the prosecution directly caused his suicide:

Heymann was instrumental in prosecuting Jonathan James and Stephen Watt.[3] James committed suicide, leaving behind a note claiming innocence.[3][6]

As a matter of fact, he committed suicide eight years later, and as James's page makes clear, his reason (and proclamation of innocence) was related to new alleged hacking from that later time frame.

This is simply not good encyclopedic editing. As the sole reason for the existence of this article is not the notability of Heymann but a personal attack, and he is not notable in his own right, the article must be deleted. The fact that there are so many votes to keep it, and the editing history of the article, merely points out that this is one of the times that Wikipedia voting rules can't prevent majority bias from tainting the encyclopedia. If the users voting here reach a tainted consensus based on their wish to attack the perceived enemies of Aaron Swartz, the page should still be deleted for multiple violations of Wikipedia rules related to notability/undue weight and bias.75.67.246.17 (talk) 15:09, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, as the James page makes clear, Heymann prosecuted James (and made him the first juvenile ever jailed in a federal institution over a cybercrime) in one case (hacking NASA). James didn't deny it. Heymann was investigating him a second time, years later. It was the second investigation (TJX hack and Heartland Payment Systems hack) - in which Watt was convicted and James was allegedly an unindicted co-conspiritor - that brought the Secret Service to James' house and that led to his suicide. James vehemently protested his innocence in that case, but his suicide note indicated that he did not trust the judicial system. It was all on the James page, if one actually read it and the sources. The Heymann page now does link to the James page. One wonders if it wouldn't have been better practice to actually read the James page, discern the obvious differences between the two James cases and insert the link from Heymann to James, rather than to spout nonsense about the link being "cleverly left out" or James having "committed suicide at 24 after being sentenced at 16" or "he will be subject to further attacks if anyone he's ever successfully prosecuted commits suicide at any future time, no matter how remote."David in DC (talk) 00:23, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The delete votes argue not-notable but are not based in Wikipolicy. I agree this article requires some clean up and POV parsing but when you have sources such as the New York Times doing a ~~biographical piece~~ in-depth interview before the Swartz case even started it should raise some flags. Mkdw ^talk 20:17, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The New York Times did not do a biographical piece on Heymann, but instead included one paragraph about him in a much larger article about Albert Gonzalez. This one article does not show that Heymann is significant outside of one event --Hirolovesswords (talk) 20:52, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. Nonetheless the coverage of Heymann and his case is extensive. It's practically an interview with him. Mkdw ^talk 21:31, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Added Attorney General's Distinguished Service Award, additional info about conviction of Albert Gonzalez, additional info about conviction of Watt and connection between Watt/James TJX hacker case and Gonzalez Heartland Payment systems case. Deleted reference to Carmen Ortiz. With the award, the TJX case, and the Heartland case, plus the deletion of Ortiz's name and the link for Swartz to US v. Swartz instead of the whole Swartz article, I think we've easily met WP:GNG and ameliorated any lingering WP:COATRACK concerns. WP:SNOW? David in DC (talk) 04:11, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well...no, I don't think you meet WP:GNG, much less easily. You can't find Heymann's real title anywhere (chief of cyber crimes). You can't find a picture of him online. This fails 'significant coverage.' jhawkinson (talk) 12:38, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Removed Attorney General's Distinguished Service Award and info about the Watt and James cases as they did not have a reliable source. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 23:07, 27 January 2013 (UTC) Info is now reliably sourced. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 23:57, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E, WP:COATRACK, and on notability grounds. Clearly created as an attack article. Wikipedia isn't the place to fix great wrongs, real or otherwise... AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:47, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to know the motivation of the creator of an article. But even if it were knowable, this is not now an attack article. If it ever was, it's been rescued, by good-faith, collaborative editing.

This is a notable person. He's been covered in multiple reliable sources, about activities unrelated to US. v. Swartz. Try this experiment. Ignore the last two paragraphs. Read about his current job, his being a computer crime specialist, his distinguished service award, the Heartland Case and the TJX case. (You'll read the bit about his father too, but while it's an interesting biographical fact, it carries no weight for notability. That doesn't mean it comes out, but it doesn't go on the balance.) What you've now got is a pre-eminant federal cyber-crime prosecutor, recognized as such by the National Law Journal in one verbatim quote, and by the U.S. Attorney-General's Distinguished Service Award, reported in several reliable sources, plus the DOJ press release on the award. These facts come from: the National Law Journal, the New York Times, ~~the UK Daily Mail,~~ Bloomberg Businessweek, RT, Wired and the Huffington Post. There's supporting information from his bio in the program of a conference of the First Judicial Circuit, the website of the Boston U.S. Attorney's Office and ~~the legal blog of a notable legal scholar~~ the US DOJ website. Focus on the edits, not the initial editor or your perception of that and/or other editors' purpose. If the subject is sufficiently notable, as established in reliable sources, the article should stay.

In my view, the Swartz stuff should stay, too. It's also notable and found in numerous reliable sources. Having the article without it, in 2013, would be crazy. But, divining murky motivations ought not be the crux of the analysis of this article or this AfD. I, myself, have often thought six impossible things before breakfast. David in DC (talk) 20:14, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Arguments for deletion do not convince. "Old" is, according to participants here, well explained, and it wouldn't necessarily be a reason for deletion if it weren't (but for renaming or editing). That this list is a pipe dream is not proven, and that someone's feelings might get hurt is neither proven nor relevant. Drmies (talk) 03:14, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of regions of old Armenia

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

Reasons: 1. There is no territory called "old Armenia"; 2. No references in the article since creation couple of years ago Konullu (talk) 22:49, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 January 21. Snotbot t • c » 23:13, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because of the following reasons: a) territory name is not clear. It is not clear what is "old Armenia". We could create articles about list of regions for "old Indonesia", "old Chile", "old France" with similar logic; b) Although this article has been created in 2007 by Armenian users, no reference was put in the article since then. Mrashidli (talk) 23:17, 21 January 2013 (UTC) — Mrashidli (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete Article express imagination of Armenian people, not the historical facts. Ali Ismayilov (talk) 07:38, 22 January 2013 (UTC+1)

Delete Basically it may be a can of worms. The phrase "old" in this context is problematic and ambiguous. The article is totally unreferenced, does not contain any time frame whatsoever and does not discuss the issue of contemporary vs. modern borders. Brandmeister^talk 10:21, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No encyclopedic definition of "old Armenia", the article lists cities and places of current Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Syria, Iran, Iraq, etc. without any reference, relevance and logic. 195.212.29.186 (talk) 13:47, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article hurts national feelings of neighboring states, as it claims that internationally recognized territories of neighboring countries belonged to so-called "old Armenia: Best, Narmin. 195.212.29.189 (talk) 14:09, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:38, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:38, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It says at the top that "This is a list of regions and or districts of ancient Armenia". Click the link and you get to History of Armenia which in an infobox on the right you see a list of what is classified by historians as Ancient Armenia. Links to those articles show maps and information on what was part of it. If you check what links to this article, it seems to be a bunch of one sentence articles, which are on the list. [8] I asked people at the History of Armenia article their opinions on whether this list was useful and accurate. [9] Dream Focus 16:01, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Source until otherwise convinced, I haven't seen one valid deletion rationale in this AFD so far, and a list of districts of an ancient kingdom is an encyclopedic topic that meets WP:GNG. I rarely agree with Dream Focus, but he is right in asking for expert opinion in this subject (thus the otherwise convinced comment). AFD is not cleanup. Secret ^account 21:46, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User Secret, with all the due respect, when something is pure nonsense it may be somewhat complicated to opine on it in a more organised manner. That could be the reason of your impression. --E4024 (talk) 23:05, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename Of course, the phrase "old Armenia" isn't appropriate, but the article itself is worthy. I suggest renaming it "List of regions of the Kingdom of Armenia". see Kingdom of Armenia (antiquity) --Երևանցի ^talk 01:30, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Secret. Once again this is of bad faith as certain users believe that this is disrupting "national feelings". This is not a reason to delete articles especially when it can be easily sourced or the title of the article can change. Proudbolsahye (talk) 01:35, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Secret and rename List of regions of historic Armenia. Jackal 01:44, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If you can clearly define what time period is referred to as "old" or "ancient" Armenia, then no problems with the article at all. Quite encyclopedic. We have Category:Regions of old Armenia which has additional information at its top. Dream Focus 01:45, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus seems clear, and the text article does not even suggest it knows precisely what its subject is. Drmies (talk) 03:16, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Native American Indian Dog

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

Non-notable, dog was involved in one incident that was reported in local papers. There was a book written about the incident by the people involved but that's the only source i could find besides the news articles already cited and breeder sites. TKK ^{bark !} 23:02, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom and per reasoning of the previous nomination—the reasons given are still valid now. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) (formerly R——bo) 23:48, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:56, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but keep objective - I am the nominator from the previous AfD when this article was deleted. Invariably, it keeps getting recreated. Elf gave some good advice that I will quote here: ~Pesco^{So say•we all} 21:45, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but make sure it's really neutral. In my vast (really) experience with wikipedia dog-breed articles is that, if there are people selling them by that name, the article will be recreated over and over. It's better to have the article and try to make sure that it clarifies as neutrally as possible that this is a developing breed, there might be only a couple of breeders doing it, that its legitimacy is still debatable, and cite ANY kinds of references that one can find. I do think that it's very hard to put info on the breed about its temperament, size, etc. when it's not even close to being a fully developed breed yet. Elf 23:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:56, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:56, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:56, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The solution to repeated recreation is not to just allow it. If it isn't notable, then repeated recreation can be dealt with through salting. -- Whpq (talk) 16:55, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 00:14, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Witch house (music genre)

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

Short lived neologism disguised as a music genre. About the only thing people can agree is certain bands for a period of time used similar iconography. The person who invented the term used it as a joke, no one can even agree if it's parent genres is a genre of music, no one can agree on even if these are genres what they should be called and what common attributes they share. It seems almost universally agreed that the one big album in the genre is not a part of the genre. The entire thing seems to have blown over and I can find no evidence that any bands of note are active in this "micro-genre". Ridernyc (talk) 22:09, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note this is this articles second AFD the first one end no consensus [10] Ridernyc (talk) 22:15, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article itself and the sources it quotes clearly explain that "witch house" is just an expression that was thrown around, not the name of something definable. Seems like a violation of "not a dictionary." Steve Dufour (talk) 22:54, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Not a dictionary" is more to prevent unexpandable stubs in the vein of "xyz is a term which means abc" and nothing more. This article is quite concise and has many sources; it goes beyond being a dicdef. I think the way it's written is pretty bad, though - paragraphs about whether something is a "real genre" are meaningless. If there are reliable sources describing a movement called "witch house" then call it a movement and not a "term invented by one producer to describe his sound". - filelake shoe  23:08, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep It has been widely used in the media, and although there's not an exact definition there's a clear sense that the bands have something in common. Although the term was initially used as a joke/insult that's not decisive - many genre/stylistic terms started in a similar way (punk, shoegaze, Gothic, etc) - and the term has taken on a life of its own, supplanting the similar genre designation "drag", which currently redirects to witch house. The real question is whether the movement has enough coverage to be notable, and it has received coverage in major music publications and a bit of coverage in mainstream non-music press, though a bit more would be nice. Also there's at least 3 bands on WP described as Witch House (oOoOO, Salem (Michigan band), Pictureplane). I would support a merge if there was a larger genre this could be grouped under, but I don't see one. --Colapeninsula (talk) 00:00, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One of those three artist would be the person invented the term as a joke, and is cited in the article as clearly stating it's not a real genre or movement, read his answer when asked to define the genre here [11]. Ridernyc (talk) 00:32, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is a good rational. Genre/style names can come from everywhere, doesn't really matter if the instigator was joking. People appropriate the term for their own use, and there is a tongue-in-cheek aspect to the the style in the first place --MilkMiruku (talk) 22:49, 28 January 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Weak keep for the same reasons expressed by Colapeninsula. It really doesn't matter if the term is a joke; if it's used in reliable sources to describe a genre, or a group of bands, it's worth keeping the information. --Arxiloxos (talk) 06:16, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is there are no reliable sources that really use the term as genre I highly recommend people read through the sources on this article. There is no development, characteristics, history, any of the stuff you need to have a genre. Unless of course what font you use on album cover can be considered a genre. Ridernyc (talk) 15:34, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary is not about the length or depth of an article, but about its topic. We don't have an article on "beautiful day", although that expression is probably used a million times more often than "witch house." Steve Dufour (talk) 16:03, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:22, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep It's a term that has a scene attached. It's not like there aren't references already. Just because it seems flash-in-the-pan doesn't mean it's not worth keeping note of. There's many lesser-known styles that influenced later genres, like new beat or grime. Maybe newbreed will get bigger, but still, I don't think it's worth loosing information on something that's influential. Yes, there is ambiguity, but people have different perceptions so such might not always line up objectively, but that's interesting from a sociological point of view. Describe the controversy in a NPOV way and try fit in further references, natch. (and I'm seeing more unicode characters in non-witch house artist/track titles now..) --MilkMiruku (talk) 22:43, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:02, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Juancho Trivino

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

Does not appear to meet notability criteria under WP:BIO; the news website referenced is an article about the TV show which makes only a passing mention of the actor's name, and no other gnews or ghits apart than social networks etc. Not notable yet; may become so in future but notability must be current, not potential. Baldy Bill (talk) 20:30, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page for exactly the same reasoning:

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:50, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:50, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:50, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:50, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Since when do we accept FB as a source? --E4024 (talk) 18:33, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both articles - Completely fail notability - lack of sources to be found. Mabalu (talk) 20:32, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect both to Teen_Gen#Main_characters - It seems the show only started airing recently and, to my knowledge, both of them haven't achieved significant careers. Yes, there are several news sources briefly mentioning them here, here, here and here but nothing to establish notability or a detailed article. Redirect with no prejudice towards a future article for each of them. SwisterTwister talk 04:18, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - Too soon to have an article at this point. I don't think a redirect is an option either since they'll probably have more roles in the future. No prejudice against recreation should either gain popularity eventually. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:44, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 23:13, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Ward (Social Entrepreneur)

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

No evidence this is an individually notable person. The references generally consist of single line mentions in articles about other subjects e.g. Comic Relief or 1GOAL. No reference consists of substantial coverage that would meet the WP:GNG. No reference contains any biographical details (except job title). Fails WP:N. Tassedethe (talk) 19:29, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – He isn't a notable person Zekrom12 (talk) 20:37, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:07, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:07, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- He appears to be involved in making Comic Relief, which rasies a lot of money for charity, but since he is not mentioned in the article, I have conclude that he is NN. If mentioned in the article, I would have suggested a redirect there. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:24, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 23:13, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cage Stage Calvinism

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

This article is about a colloquial term. The fact that the term has been used by some notable writers does not make the term itself notable. The title is also POV, as I think is clear from the lead. The article would be a very incomplete and POV article on Conversion to Calvinism. JFH (talk) 16:18, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Google produces lots of hits, but mostly in the blogosphere. This book talks about it, but I'm not sure if it's a reliable source. It doesn't seem like an encyclopedic topic. St Anselm (talk) 20:48, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:55, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:55, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DElete WP:NEO, though apparently used by three authors of whom I hahad not heard. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:35, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hue Sat Lum 18:46, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. There is clear consensus that this subject is notable and articles for deletion is not cleanup. (non-admin closure) TBr and ley ^{(what's up)} 23:34, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gamelan gong gede

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

No references. Grammatical failures (e.g., lack of subject for the first sentence of the body), etc.

External links in the body of the text, violating several policies. (I didn't bother with checking for copyright notices at the links of recordings....)

Gamelan is one of the most studied forms of ethnomusicology, and there's no reason for an unsourced article. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:35, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I make a comment in a discussion at WP:VPP about Kiefer Wolfowitz's disruptive editing, and then he "coincidentally" happens to first prod, then (after the prod notice was removed) nominate an article I started for deletion rather than fix (or even tag) some minor problems with it? This is utterly pathetic battling. — Hex (❝?!❞) 17:38, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please retract your AGF violation. I often discuss gamelan, as a search of my user name would show---assuming the search facilities here are easier to use than the demanding search-engine on DGM....

You have a lot of bad articles, from what I can see, but Wikipedia is filled with shit, so I don't AfD the others. However, Galeman is important, and this article should be in user-space until it would have been accepted by my 5th grade teacher. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:52, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, sources seem to exist, not that KW bothered to look for them in his haste to ram an elbow in Hex's ribs. — foxj 17:50, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You have noticed the grammatical problems? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:52, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I'm aware, grammatical problems are not reasons to delete an article. — foxj 17:59, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In English, sentences have subjects. Did you look at the first sentence-fragment of the body? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:41, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there seem to be plenty of sources. A reliable source is Review of 'Ritual Music from Bali III: The Gong Gede from Sulahan by Danker H. Schaareman; Barni Palm; Monika Nadolny' in Ethnomusicology, Vol 34, No 1, Winter 1990. (Actually that's 2 sources, the recording and the review). A book is Triguna: A Hindu-Balinese Philosophy for Gamelan Gong Gede Music by Made Mantle Hood, Lit Verlag, 2011. An album is Gamelan Gong Gede of Batur Temple, King Record Co Ltd, 1992. There appear to be sources in Bahasa Indonesia (language) also. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:17, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep; deletion is not cleanup. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:25, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Chiswick Chap has identified reliable sources. Bad grammar and invalid citations are surmountable problems; WP:SURMOUNTABLE policy recommends editing and deletion only as a last resort. A related policy, WP:NOTFORCLEANUP, indicates that AfD is not for cleanup of articles on notable topics. Both of these policies recommend that the article be kept. Mark viking (talk) 21:10, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are citing user essays which are not even guidelines. They are certainly not policy. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:54, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep AfD is not cleanup. Jucchan (talk) 22:00, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - references are present (albeit not really presented as references, fact is, they're still there), and nothing else is a valid rationale for deletion in the nominator's comments. Trout for apparent bad faith nom as well. Lukeno94 (talk) 22:07, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry. I had confused WP with an encyclopedia with pillars about content. I can see how my nomination seemed like bad faith to you. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:39, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, I saw the bit at the village pump, and it's clear you came here with a negative agenda. You're using AfD as a tool to force cleanup, and if you are as interested in gamelan as you claim, you wouldn't have brought it here, but you'd sort it out yourself... That, to me, is bad faith. Hence the trout. Lukeno94 (talk) 22:43, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Hex did a nifty bit of canvassing at the village pump.
Lukeno, I have contributed to the gamelan article using this account, as you can check. You might like to see what a reliable source and citation look like. In my experience, AfD does result in clean-up. Shit is removed, or a stub is created. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:51, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Or at least no consensus. A principal argument for deletion is the national origin of the sources. That is mistaken; per WP:RS sources are deemed reliable (or not) according to criteria other than the country of their publication. Sandstein 21:11, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Garadaghly Massacre

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

16 out the 18 references given are Azerbaijani, which means partisan sources and some are even dead links. According to Wikipedia, sources for notability purposes should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. Furthermore material based purely on primary sources should be avoided. Moreover the common theme in the notability guidelines is that there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability. This article is mainly based on primary sources, non-objective evidence and has not received any significant attention from independent sources. Markus2685 (talk) 15:53, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my own and other arguments advanced in previous AfD regarding the strength of the existing sourcing. I disagree with the assertion that an Azerbaijani source is by nature primary. Unless we are to assume that all of the sources were literally written by people who were in the village at the time of the assault, by calling all of these sources "primary" we are removing the ability of Azerbaijani media to contribute to the coverage of Azerbaijani events within Wikipedia. As I suggested last time, if there are opposing views on this subject then they should be incorporated within the article. If the concern is objectivity, deleting the article is another and more extreme version of being non-objective. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 19:00, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ~~Delete~~ I repeat the guidelines: "Moreover the common theme in the notability guidelines is that there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability". This has not happened. I can see not one single independent source here like Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch etc. --Markus2685 (talk) 01:26, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As nominator, it is assumed you support deletion - no need to also "vote". Cheers, Stalwart111 12:53, 22 January 2013 (UTC) [reply]

~~Weak~~ Keep - mostly per WP:NOENG. If you contend the sources are not reliable then we would probably need translations in order to assess them. Stalwart111 12:53, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I furthermore quote: "Wikipedia:NOENG#Notability: If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it."--Markus2685 (talk) 19:27, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your quoting of policy and guidelines is accurate but it doesn't really address the concerns expressed. The fact that all of the sources are from a particular region in a particular language isn't really a solid argument for deletion, in my opinion. Most of the sources for the Myall Creek massacre are in English (not an Aboriginal language) and are from Australia. Likewise for the Sand Creek massacre; English and from the United States. If the sources themselves are biased or otherwise unreliable, then we'll likely need more analysis than, "I think they must be biased". You've offered not much by way of actual source analysis. Until then, we are called on to assume good faith. Stalwart111 22:51, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:14, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:14, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:14, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:14, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No third-party reliable source is given. Note that it's not about sources being in Azerbaijani language, but sources being Azerbaijani. It can be in any other language other than Azeri and Armenian (the two confronting sides), like Russian (the main language of interaction of the two nations) written by a non-involved author. --Երևանցի ^talk 22:01, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean there. Why would an Azeri source automatically be considered biased? Or an Armenian source for that matter? What guarantee is there that a Russian source would automatic be more NPOV? We don't expect the same (by default) for other historical conflicts like Israel/Palestine or India/Pakistan. In both cases, sources from either side are used extensively. We do subject those sources to extra scrutiny, sure, but that's not what it happening here. We're basically saying, we don't trust commentary from either side to be neutral/fact based. But no evidence of that has actually been presented. Stalwart111 22:51, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deat Stalwart, before commenting on controversial topics like this you should do some basic research on Armenian-Azerbaijani relations first. My comment was pretty clear. Perhaps, you didn't know that Armenia and Azerbaijan are in state of war. And as we speak Armenian and Azeri soldiers are at the border keeping eye on each other. As an Armenian myself, I'm stating than no Armenian or Azerbaijani source (especially published/said/recorded after 1988) should be used in any article concerning these two nations and be presented as a fact. It can only be presented as the point of view of that side only. --Երևանցի ^talk 01:15, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, not really, my original research wouldn't count for much anyway. You are certainly entitled to your opinion of the conflict and those involved; not suggesting otherwise. But your comment doesn't really explain why this particular conflict should be treated differently to any other conflict where tensions are equally high, propaganda equally prolific and opinion equally divided. Many of those conflicts are ongoing conflicts. There are literally thousands of conflicts covered here on WP and I can't find a policy-based reason to exclude sources from either "side" by default and simply on principle. I understand entirely that we should be super, super cautious about the sources we use, for all the reasons you have given. But deleting an article (without analysis of the actual sources, who authored them, when they were written, who published them, what they actually say) just based on the fact that the sources appear to be from one side or the other, doesn't seem like an opinion grounded in policy. Stalwart111 01:28, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let me be more clear. When the President of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev who got the crown from his communist dad, whose statues are all over the country said "our main enemies are Armenians of the world" in a speech addressed to regional government heads, when their army destroyed hundred-year-old cross stones, when their army leutenant killed an Armenian soldier in Hungary with an axe at sleep, when the President himself is is considered a dictator by Western media. He wins elections with over 80% of the vote and has unlimited number of terms. I don't think you can find similar situation in Kosovo, Abkhazia, Cyprus, Kashmir or any other conflict. You name it!

Again, you don't seem to understand how this conflict works. I'll just want one answer from you. Can you explain why third-party sources don't have anything written about this? It's clearly another propaganda work.

Also note that, as an Armenian myself, I avoid using Armenian sources in controversial issues as this one. I used to, but then I understood that the best is relying on non-involved sources.

If you want me to analyze each source, we can do that together. I will be more than happy. --Երևանցի ^talk 01:49, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would be an excellent idea. If there really are no reliable sources then the article should be deleted and that would be an entirely appropriate and sufficient deletion rationale. But no one has done that analysis, nor expressed a willingness to do so and so deletion "on spec" didn't seem diligent on our part.

You're absolutely right, this dude seems bat-sh*t crazy and I wouldn't trust a press release from his office as a reliable source for an article about anything. But we can't tar every Azerbaijani with the same brush just because their leader is crazy. We also can't just decide that anything written by any Azerbaijani is an "unreliable source" as a result and delete every article with Azeri-only sources as a result.

I'll copy-paste the source list from the article onto this AFD's talk page. Any insight you can give for each would be valuable. Stalwart111 02:13, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I never said that everything said by Azerbaijanis is a lie or an anti-Armenian propaganda, but most is and avoiding them is the best as I avoid Armenian sources. Also didn't say unreliable, but biased. As most Armenian sources are. 95% of the Azerbaijani media is under government control and the other 5% are bloggers who have been constantly arrested for their views. --Երևանցի ^talk 02:22, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I get that, though "state media" with pro-Government bias would generally be considered unreliable as it has no editorial independence on Government-related matters. I've listed all the sources on this AFD's talk page to allow everyone to comment on each. Stalwart111 02:52, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good, look at the page again. I added comments on them why they are not reliable. --Երևանցի ^talk 03:32, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. I've collapsed some I think are unreliable from the get-go. If others want to open them up and discuss them, that's fine, but I don't think those are worth worrying about. I've made some comments for you to consider / asked some more questions. Stalwart111 04:08, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In general, there are no published sources on this alleged massacre. Thomas de Waal's Black garden (which is considered one of the best books on Karabakh conflict and although criticized from both parties, it's one of the most cited books on Wiki for this topic) doesn't mention it either. Is it appropriate to build an article on those few sentences from suspicious news articles, which isn't even mentioned in any other source?--Երևանցի ^talk 05:17, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That, my friend, is the right question I think. Stalwart111 06:31, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, this article needs to be locked down and each "source" confirmed through consensus and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. All the sources have to conform to Wikipedia:AA2 per[12]. The Malibeyli and Gushchular Massacre needs to have the same thing done. A source by source check. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:51, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "Locked down"? You mean protected? Why? Drmies (talk) 04:54, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just see an edit war on the horizon as soon as any of these sources fail Wikipedia:Reliable sources. --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:33, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly has that potential (as many controversial articles do) but there is a very WP:CIVIL and good faith (I think) source-by-source review happening on this AFD's talk page. Would appreciate your input. I won't claim a chat between two editors is WP:CONSENSUS but I think it's a good start. Stalwart111 06:31, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Expanded discussion-related commentary

Comment to be honest, I don't get the point of this discussion. There are unmistakably defined WP guidelines which I have quoted above. The guidelines were created in order to have all WP articles with a certain standard. This article is describing an incident being part of the Nagorno Karabakh war. All other articles belonging to this same topic (Khojaly massacre, Sumgait pogrom, Maraga Massacre etc.) are, as it should be, supported by dozens of secondary and third-party sources and have all gained significant attention from independent sources like The Washington Post, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Thomas de Waal, BBC, The New York Times, Los Angeles Times and so on … This is not the case at all in this article. Even the chosen title of this article "Garadaghly Massacre" is dubious and highly biased as there is not one single third-party, independent source which has described this incidents as "massacre" except of Azerbaijani sources. I don't see any sense in analysing if a media outlet from Azerbaijan (for example news.az), is reliable or not because this doesn't change anything. Even if it was, the article still violates all WP guidelines.--Markus2685 (talk) 12:34, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Guidelines are built and maintained by WP:CONSENSUS and are interpreted and implemented by WP:CONSENSUS. Discussion and consensus are the whole point of AFD. Otherwise why nominate it? You can often build a consensus by making rational, policy-based arguments in an attempt to convince others that your interpretation is the right one and is the one that is most likely to lead to the constructive building of a neutral, reliably-sourced encyclopaedia. As I noted above, there are plenty of conflict articles, even "massacre" articles, that are supported by single-cultural-origin sources and I asked you why this article should be treated differently. You haven't answered the question. You don't have to, but you don't have much of a chance of building consensus (currently equally split if you !vote-count) if you ignore legitimate queries. You've suggested that the article should be deleted because it is supported only by unreliable sources, but you haven't really explained why they should be considered unreliable. Stalwart111 23:38, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have actually answered your question with the following sentence: "This article is describing an incident being part of the Nagorno Karabakh war. All other articles belonging to this same topic (Khojaly massacre, Sumgait pogrom, Maraga Massacre etc.) are, as it should be, supported by dozens of secondary and third-party sources and have all gained significant attention from independent sources like The Washington Post, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Thomas de Waal, BBC, The New York Times, Los Angeles Times and so on … This is not the case at all in this article.". So to make it even more clear. As this article belongs to a series of articles depicting one main topic (the Karabakh War) I take the other related articles as a comparison. And I don't think your argument of "there are plenty of conflict articles..." is appropriate. Just because there are many articles conflicting with WP guidelines isn't an argument. The main argument I have given is my first sentence I have repeated above. Hope I could clarify my point a bit more.--Markus2685 (talk) 16:52, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think we'll have to agree to disagree then, because there are a number of secondary sources (from news media, books, etc) not written by people directly involved in the conflict. That you don't think they are adequate or as high-quality as those for other articles is another matter entirely. I am not strongly one way or the other on this and am genuinely keen to understand why you contend that all 18 sources are unreliable by default. That's why I started the talk-page discussion. Stalwart111 23:09, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my comments on this AFD's talk page--Markus2685 (talk) 01:17, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A great start. I have left some notes there for you to consider. I might collapse this bit - we've had our chat and anything else can be added on the talk page. Cheers, Stalwart111 01:50, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment primarily directed at nominator: Would renaming the article help to address some of your concerns? I am not sympathetic to the notion of outright deleting this article, because I remain unconvinced that these sources are all truly primary, but your arguments regarding how loaded the word "massacre" is are very well-taken, at least by me. I'm unsure what the new name could be (perhaps "Garadaghly Incident"?), but it seems to me that at least some of your concerns are with the word "massacre," and likely with the tone of the article in a few places as well. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 17:24, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my comments on this AFD's talk page--Markus2685 (talk) 01:17, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have read them. I don't really see how they constitute a response to my suggestion, but I'll take this as a "no, not helpful." ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 01:34, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What I wanted to say is, that renaming the article would not help or change anything as the sources are the main problem --Markus2685 (talk) 03:14, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha. I'm going to supply some responses on the reference discussion on the talk page. I disagree in a few cases (not in all of them) with your interpretation of what constitutes a primary source and a reliable source. Bias does not necessarily make content unreliable (from WP:RELIABLE: "However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective."), and editorial content published in a reliable source, however one-sided that content may be, is definitely "reliable." The requirement is that the source is reliable. I'll write some quick replies on the talk page (and note I definitely agree with your assessment of at least several of these sources) I just wanted to sum most of them up here. Sorry the rename solution didn't appeal -- I was hoping there might be some easy remedy :). ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 03:56, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete It should have been deleted the first time it was nominated. The same problems persist and there's little hope that the references will ever improve.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 18:38, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have analysed all 18 references given for this article and could not find any strong reference which would led to the decision, that this topic deserves an article on Wikipedia --Markus2685 (talk) 01:17, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The massacre is described in much detail by Markar Melkonian, the brother of the Armenian warlord Monte Melkonian. He cannot be accused of anti-Armenian bias, so there cannot be any reasonable doubt that the massacre took place. The book could be seen here: [13] Check page 212. Melkonian refers to the village as Karadaghlu. Grandmaster 16:56, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quote from Melkonian's book, My brother's road: an American's fateful journey to Armenia, I.B. Tauris, 2005, ISBN 1850436355, 9781850436355, p. 212:

Soon, however, things changed. Arabo and Aramo fighters shoved thirty-eight captives, including several women and other noncombatants, into a ditch on the outskirts of the village. One of the captives in the ditch pulled the pin from a grenade concealed under a bandaged hand and tossed it, taking off the lower leg of one of his captors, a recent Patriotic Detachment recruit named Levon. The Arabo and Aramo fighters there had already been hankering to "avenge" the death of another comrade the day before, so as soon as the grenade had gone off they began stabbing and shooting their captives, until every last one was dead. Shram Edo, one of the five Patriotic Detachment “boys” from Ashdarak, had joined in too, dousing several wounded soldiers with gasoline and tossing a match to burn them alive. By the time Monte came across the ditch on the outskirts of town it was a butcher's heap.

...

A total of fifty-three Azeris were killed in and around Karadaghlu during those two days, compared to three killed on the Armenian side, including a sixty-year-old villager in Haghorti who had been hit by a stray bullet.

Grandmaster 17:27, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, nobody denies the fact that people die during wars. The source you cited does not say whether civilians or soldiers were killed (A total of fifty-three Azeris were killed in and around Karadaghlu). It's a known fact that many more Azerbaijanis were killed in NK than Armenians. The blame is perhaps on the Aliyev dynasty, which didn't really care about own people as it still doesn't today. --Երևանցի ^talk 00:52, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Markarian calls it a "butchery in Karadaghlu". I think butchery is pretty much the same as massacre. And the rest of your comment is difficult to understand. What do you mean "The source you cited does not say whether civilians or soldiers were killed"? I think it is quite obvious from the cited source that a group of POWs and civilians were slaughtered on the outskirts of the village in an execution type massacre, some in quite an inhumane way (burned alive). And the source makes it quite clear that within the group killed in the ditch there were "several women and other noncombatants". And I do not understand what Aliyev has to do with Armenian militants stabbing and shooting unarmed people or burning them alive. Everybody is responsible for his own actions, and in this case the Armenian militants did what they did, and it is documented by sources on their own side. Grandmaster 11:37, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From the same book, p 212-213:

More than fifty Azeri captives had been butchered at Karadaghlu. But it was not the butchery that damaged Monte's reputation among the Karabagh mountain people. On the contrary, vengeance ran deep in the mountains, and the loudest voices on both sides demanded blood for blood. What damaged Monte's reputation, rather, was the fact that the butchery at Karadaghlu had taken place against his orders. Kechel Sergei, who had been evacuated to a hospital with a bullet through the back, could not have cared less about Azeri casualties; what infuriated him were reports that Monte had not prevented Arabo Manvel from hauling off the Patriotic Detachment's split of the captured munitions.

Grandmaster 11:48, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - well-referenced article with even Armenian source. Armenian author (he is definitely NOT pro-Azerbaijani due to his famous political vision) also admitted this massacre. Best, Konullu (talk) 21:36, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That Armenian source doesn't call it a massacre, nor says civilians were killed. --Երևանցի ^talk 00:54, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It says civilians were killed, read carefully. And it calls it a butchery. Grandmaster 11:37, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep and Rename - as it seems that only Azerbaijani sources use that title then it definitely needs to be renamed into something more neutral (something like Armenian capture of Garadaghly). As for the rest of the article, every source should be checked just like Kansas bear said. Its quite possible that deletion would be appropriate, but its hard to say at current stage as it seems that there definitely was some kind of incident, just how notable it was remains unclear.--Staberinde (talk) 11:18, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think mass execution of more than 50 people is notable enough for an article. As for the name, Melkonian is not an Azerbaijani source, and the word butchery that he uses means the same as massacre. If we strictly follow the words used in the source, the article should be called "butchery in Garadaghly", but that's not the generally accepted way of naming the articles here, therefore I think "Garadaghly Massacre" is more appropriate. Grandmaster 11:52, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Its still very questionable if a single non-azeri source is sufficient for title that has very obvious POV issues.--Staberinde (talk) 12:37, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. An Wikipedia artcile can not be based on one single source that mentions these incidents in a few lines. Moreover if this one single source is furthermore an Armenian source and therefore depicts no "neutral point of view" as Armenians where one part who were directly involved in this matter. WP:NPOV. --Markus2685 (talk) 14:25, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is that Garadaghly is just one of the hundreds of Azerbaijani villages destroyed in Nagorno-Karabakh and adjacent regions. What makes it special is that it was a location of the mass killing of civilians and POWs, with the death toll exceeding 50. Therefore I think the title needs to reflect why the events in this location are notable for an article. Grandmaster 21:03, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Renaming this article does not change anything in this case as the sources are the main problem. Every single source has been checked and analysed in this AFDs talk page. ~~The~~ My result was, that the sources are either Primary sources, or not verifiable or violate Wikipedias core content policiy of "neutral point of view". Therefore I don't see any other solution than deleting this article. Even more because of the fact, as this was already a topic for discussion in the first AFD in February 2012 and the references have not improved at all since then. --Markus2685 (talk) 14:45, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Armenian and Azerbaijani sources both agree that the event described in the article took place. That means that the subject of the article is existent, and more sources could be found in the future. Of course, any questionable or unreliable sources and dead links should be removed, but Melkonian is a reliable source in this context, as he has no reason to be biased against the Armenian side, and he provides quite a detailed description of what happened in Garadaghly. Grandmaster 21:03, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Markus2685, neither that discussion (which does not require closure) nor this one (which has not yet been closed) has a result as yet, so claiming as much is a bit premature. You are entitled to your personal opinion or conclusions, of course, but ascribing a result to a discussion is a different thing all together. Stalwart111 23:55, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have changed my !vote above from weak keep to just plain keep. I was concerned about some of the sources and so started a discussion on the talk page of this AFD to allow those who suggested all 18 original sources were unreliable to substantiate that view. While a number of those 18 sources can and should be removed, I'm not entirely convinced by claims that all are unreliable, as the analysis of each source has demonstrated. The insistence that sources meet our NPOV policy is not particularly convincing, mostly because we don't require the sources to be neutral, we are required to write about them, cite them and interpret them neutrally, per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV (from the same policy). I think such an insistence is a misreading of that policy. A lack of neutrality is of concern, in my opinion, where the sources are biased because of a lack of independence from the subject. Thus, Government sources where the Government is a party to the incident would not be considered independent which is something we require from sources. But there are enough non-Government sources here that talk about the incident, are generally in agreement about some of the facts - when, where, etc - to verify content and can be cited appropriately, in my opinion. I remain slightly concerned about the title. As Grandmaster points out, the facts that can be verified do indeed substantiate an incident that could be described as a "massacre". But given few of the sources actually use that term (and it is certainly not used as consistently as is the case with other similar articles), I think a different title might help. That said, I have no idea what a better title might be. Stalwart111 23:55, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It would be great if you could list those sources, which in your opinion are non-government/independent and on which you want to base this article on. --Markus2685 (talk) 17:04, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 23:13, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Abu Hafiza

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

Reason: Article relies on a single source, which is not a reliable source per WP:SOURCES. The single source is Debka.com, which is open-source and whose own page admits that it is very often wrong. I've tried searching for more reliable sources, and I'm finding nothing. Recommending deletion under WP:CRIME because his role in whatever al-Qaeda operations he was involved in (and the article isn't clear; al-Qaeda has not been proven responsible for the 2004 Madrid train bombings) can be adequately summarized on those operations' articles. And he's not notable for anything else. Imareaver (talk) 15:38, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 January 21. Snotbot t • c » 15:59, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. PageMaker121 (talk) 17:02, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, in the absence of reliable sources. That said, of course, it's a different question if someone does indeed find such sources. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 18:36, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:27, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:27, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:27, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:27, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:27, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There have been a number of arguments provided in the discussion, many of which refer to the subject's meeting of WP:GNG. There are a number of reliable, secondary sources and WP:CREATIVE provided in this debate, although some believe it is still not significant enough for a Wikipedia article, but most of the consensus is leading towards keep regardless and, in my opinion, relisting the page again would not be useful, and it already has been enough times. A no consensus closure this to keep, (non-admin closure) TBr and ley ^{(what's up)} 02:04, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Spagnola

If you came here because of a Reddit post, 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)

Lacks significant biographical coverage in reliable 3rd party sources. Known only for a drinking game. RadioFan (talk) 16:47, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 01:05, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning towards delete - It seems she has become more known for the drinking game rather than an actual music career. She has gained a good amount of attention since creating the game with a New York Post article here and other links here, here, here and here. Not that this would make her notable but I found a Carnegie Mellon University news article here in which she offered free paintings while she was attending. Although she has received a lot attention including from publications such the Pittsburgh Magazine and New York Post, I feel this isn't significant enough for the article (for the game, probably) but there hasn't been much attention for her music career. I have no prejudice towards a future article. SwisterTwister talk 23:39, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It doesn't really matter if her music career is notable, just that she is notable herself. The Wired, Pittsburgh Magazine, and New York Post articles seem to be good examples of reliable 3rd party sources.--PatrickD (talk) 18:13, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Update (still a Keep) - She has since won her legal battle and defeated the trademark on "Power Hour". This is getting quite a bit of news coverage here, here, and here.--PatrickD (talk) 21:02, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 22:55, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not the most important topic, but she's got multiple press reports about the drinking game, not all of which is about the one event of her being sued over it - some is simply coverage of the music and game. She's notable per WP:CREATIVE (for Power Hour) and WP:GNG. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:23, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Marginally notable at best. All of her music is released on her own dime. She's not even on a minor label. Kingturtle = (talk) 01:39, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 15:33, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Just because she's not a notable musician does not mean she isn't notable. She is definitely notable for the "Power hour" controversy. Louis C. (talk) 18:16, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then at most her name should redirect to the Power hour article. Kingturtle = (talk) 21:19, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No, she did not invent Power hour but she has not only made a product around it, she has won a courtcase about it.[14]. She may not be signed to a major label, but a LOT of artists aren't and many have entries. She's noted enough to have her discography on MTV (where her music has been featured in shows such as Real World) [15][16]. She's also had music featured on Bad Girls Club on Oxygen [17][18]. Between the lawsuit, her game, and her music, she's notable.Birobot (talk) 04:13, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Little to no biographical coverage of this person who apparently garnered her 15 minutes of fame for self-producing a novelty record based around a pre-existing drinking game (and, in case it's unclear to anyone, she didn't invent Power hour). There's probably a better argument in favor of an article on her Power Hour album, given that that's what's driven the coverage. Absolutely no prejudice against a future article if she ever produces something else of note, because at that point there will likely be sourcing that covers her from a career perspective, and not from the "look at this funny thing this one person did one time" perspective that marks current sourcing. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 19:32, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:GNG. It dosen't matter why she passes. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:50, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Billboard Social 50. MBisanz ^talk 00:03, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

YouTube Top 100

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

Chart violates WP:SINGLEVENDOR, which is, itself, a consequence of WP:NOTADVERTISING. Charts which do not combine sales or plays by multiple vendors or outlets serve only to promote the single outlet that they rank. There are dozens of such charts which are routinely removed from articles, and this is just one more. —Kww(talk) 15:28, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just expanding my nomination rationale to emphasise that the nomination doesn't focus on notability. There's a general problem with careful chart tracking, in that charts, at their core, serve as advertisements. They aren't simple numeric measures: they are carefully weighted, with eligibility requirements, timing requirements, rules about reentry, etc., in an effort to market and promote different genres and artists. That puts tracking any of them close to running afoul of WP:NOTADVERTISING. It would be impossible to cover the music industry without mention of charts, though. Even though it's marketing, it's the foundation of the way the business operates. The compromise we've come up with over the years is WP:SINGLEVENDOR: we cover charts that cross multiple channels and outlets because, despite all their faults, they provide meaningful information about the success of the individual songs on the charts. Charts that cover only a single outlet really serve to promote the outlet, not the things on the chart itself, so carefully tracking them in this manner serves no purpose except to promote the outlet.—Kww(talk) 15:26, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And your accusations of this article being an "advertisement" are totally unfounded. Whether a newly created article "violates" WP:NOTADVERTISING or not depends entirely on how the article was originally written, not on the topic of the article itself. WP:SINGLEVENDOR may or may not have been a suitable guideline for the past few years, but the fact is that times have changed and YouTube now plays a vey important role in the music industry. If the WP:SINGLEVENDOR guideline does not want to take this into consideration, then this rigid and outdated rule thoroughly deserves to be "violated" per WP:IGNORE. Repeated accusations of "WP:NOTADVERTISING" only goes to show one's lack of understanding (and misinterpration) of WP:NOT. -A1candidate (talk)-A1candidate (talk) 17:38, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. - eo (talk) 21:10, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
YouTube Top 100 right now is the only realiable worlwide chart that shows current music trends. It gives a information about most played videos in last week. I can say that it'll be (even it is now) the most important chart in music industry. Try to look also on billboard.com--Spacejam2 (talk) 20:30, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Before using such words like "violating" a rigid, outdated Wikipedia rule, do pause for a moment to consider the increasingly important role YouTube has played in the music industry in 2012 alone. It does not make sense to discredit a corporation's official tracking list just because it does not "combine sales (or views)". If there is a good reason to delete this, then I would agree with you if this isn't a notable article. But like it or not, the YouTube charts are notable, and they are frequently cited by countless media networks. -A1candidate (talk) 22:22, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Arguments based on WP:N don't apply if there is a WP:NOT issue involved.—Kww(talk) 23:03, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please avoid misinterpreting Wikipedia's guidelines; Which part of WP:NOT is this article ever a "violation" of?. You might as well delete Communism because it clearly "violates" WP:NOTOPINION. -A1candidate (talk) 07:36, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Tracking a single vendor chart serves only to promote that vendor. I'm not arguing that YouTube shouldn't be mentioned on Wikipedia, or that the existence of the YouTube chart shouldn't be noted at Billboard charts and YouTube. I'm simply pointing out that the normal interpretation of WP:NOTADVERTISING prevents us from using charts like this: we don't track Amazon, iTunes, Los 40 Principales, MYX, or any of thousands of single-vendor charts for precisely this reason. That YouTube is enormous doesn't change our policies: it's certainly not substantially larger or more influential than iTunes.—Kww(talk) 21:20, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - I dont understand your reasoning at all... Should we then delete Time magazine's Time Person of the Year because it "serves only to promote that vendor"? Should we also delete the Forbes 500 because it "serves only to promote Forbes magazine"? Hopefully not! Those articles are there because they are notable topics, not because they are there to promote Time/Forbes magazine. And believe it or not, the iTunes charts is a good indicator of music trends and it is not uncommon for musicians to top the iTunes charts before topping national music charts. The fact that there isn't an article for the iTunes charts should be seen as a failure of the Wikipedia community to create an article for a notable topic, this reasoning shouldn't be used to argue against the existence of an article for the YouTube charts. (Thats like blatantly omitting an article about the sun and then arguing that an article for the moon should not exist either). Unfortunately, your reasoning is a seriously flawed one here. Why not delete the FIFA World Rankings (or any other rankings) because it is a serious "violation" of WP:NOTADVERTISING and only serves to promote FIFA?? -A1candidate (talk) 21:45, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:SINGLEVENDOR. Erick (talk) 23:10, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:19, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This list is only for music videos watched each week, it not including all YouTube videos. Note, the list only list the top 96 sometimes, it not always the top 100(scroll to page 16 and see). [19] And the list only shows the ones that were number 1. So if it is kept, it should be renamed to List of the most popular music videos on YouTube by week or something of that sort. The media does mention certain notable bands and their current views of their YouTube videos at times, but I don't know of any place that updates their list every week. Dream Focus 11:38, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It's mentioned on Billboard charts which should be quite enough. Widr (talk) 13:17, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Obviously the existence of this Billboard chart is going to be covered on Wikipedia; whether it needs a separate page is a different question. Template:Billboard shows that we have longstanding individual pages for many of the Billboard charts. E.g., Top Heatseekers. Trends show that YouTube and social media's power to create hits is becoming quite notable.[20] So, if we are going to have these chart pages, this one should be one of them.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:00, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- We do have articles on many of the charts, but they are actually articles about the charts, not just listings of #1 hits. At a minimum the current article should be renamed to List of #1 videos on the Youtube Top 100 or something. A very diffeent article that talks about the history and significance of the chart (from reliable sources) could be created, but thats a 100% different article than what we have. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:49, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:18, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:18, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:18, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete This isn't even a chart to begin with, nobody is buying anything. This is based on video views. No indication that the top 100 is particularly notable, or the top 1 (which is the only one that is actually listed in this list). Individual videos are quite often notable, and they may certainly say that they were a top 1 as one of the signs of thier popularity - but the topic itself is not discussed. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:17, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Are TV ratings not charts then? As for the title, its a misnomer, the Billboard chart is not called the top 100.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 19:41, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral but open to rescue. Redirect to Billboard Social 50 and salt Commented below. The main problem with this list is that it is completely sourced only to YouTube and there is no context that being the number one is notable. I also think each entry should be sourced, even if it is to the YouTube chart archive. If the lead explains why the accomplishment is notable and the entries become sourced I think this could be a good list. Insomesia (talk) 19:37, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added some context and refs now...it may be a good idea to source each individual entry, but Im hesistant about further improving on this article as long as its under deletion and there's a chance that all my efforts will go to waste. -A1candidate (talk) 20:29, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Maybe check out Hot Digital Songs, it seems to have a good structure that may help. Looking at {{Billboard}} it seems like there are just dozens of this type of article, so what's needed is more up front information demonstrating that this is a notable subject. Sourcing each entry can wait for now but definitely need to show evidence this chart is notable somehow. Insomesia (talk) 02:44, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - The other charts with similar articles (like Hot Digital Songs) all collect information from multiple vendors. No one is claiming there's a notability issue.—Kww(talk) 03:09, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - So no one charts music videos except YouTube? Or is there any hope for this article, I'm guessing that it would be notable but maybe I'm missing more here? Insomesia (talk) 03:29, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        YouTube videos get charted in the Billboard Social 50, where they get combined with Facebook, Myspace, and a few other suppliers. The deletion argument for this article is that we specifically don't track charts that only contain material from a single vendor, per WP:SINGLEVENDOR and WP:NOTADVERTISING. I tried to spell it all out in the nomination and my first response. Can you read those over again and tell me what I didn't make clear?—Kww(talk) 04:01, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        I wasn't aware of Billboard Social 50. I recommend redirect and salting as this is likely to repeat. Insomesia (talk) 04:38, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I've noticed chart is no longer avaiable on YouTube, but it's still visiable on Billboard--Spacejam2 (talk) 21:31, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SINGLEVENDOR. GregJackP Boomer! 18:49, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Transdev. MBisanz ^talk 23:12, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Transdev York

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

Constant spam and non notable operator Tom the Tomato (talk) 15:10, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:21, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:21, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:21, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:21, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Transdev. Spamming is not a reason for deletion but there is no need to maintain a page for each branch of the company. Cut out the primary source material and merge what has secondary sources.--Charles (talk) 19:09, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It seems important, but very few sources can be found, possibly because it's recent. I'd prefer merging to Transdev Blazefield, where it is a more significant part, rather than to the multinational company where it wouldn't have much more than a mention of its name. Peter James (talk) 02:03, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge we had another AFD on a bus company recently. I note we also have navboxes on them. Like High Schools, I susoect that this is a class of articles that it will be diffiocult to suppress, due to the number of users who are potential editors. Nevertheless I am dubious as to their merits. I will thus support [[Peter James in his merge target of Transdev Blazefield as the British holding company, but the other five "operations" listed in that article will also need to be merged in to it. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:44, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree.--Charles (talk) 19:17, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It's likely that more sources can be found for the other companies, as they have existed for longer - all started before Transdev acquired Blazefield, and four of the five existed before Blazefield. There's even an article about a route operated by one of the companies, which has "Good article" status. Peter James (talk) 22:24, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. (non-admin closure) TBr and ley ^{(what's up)} 23:54, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kingdom of andala

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

Non-notable micronation with no coverage in independent sources. IgnorantArmies 14:46, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: A Google search on the phrase "Kingdom of Andala" produced literally two results, both pointing to Wikipedia. An organization with "no indication of importance" qualifies for speedy deletion per A7. (And I don't regard the official Facebook homepage of this "kingdom" as a "credible claim of significance or importance.") --Mike Agricola (talk) 15:07, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Tempted to go down WP:CSD. A micronation with no external sources, based purely on two 5 day old Facebook pages. The comments on both pages scream WP:HOAX, if not WP:PROMO. Funny ^Pika! 15:33, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and to add, the main body is a cut and paste job - WP:COPYVIO. Funny ^Pika! 15:47, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - There aren't many guidelines this doesn't fail dramatically (although something posted on a Facebook page, then copied here, probably is not a COPYVIO). Lukeno94 (talk) 22:15, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7 no credible claim of importance or significance, so tagged. Wikipedia is not for micronations made up one day. JohnCD (talk) 22:58, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn. notability has been demonstrated in the discussion (non-admin closure) RadioFan (talk) 15:30, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

International Conference of Laser Applications

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

Lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources. Heavily sourced article but nearly entirely by the proceedings of the conference itself. Not clear how this might meet notability guidelines. RadioFan (talk) 02:54, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: readers can check the following 3rd party references (references 15-27 in the article), all published in reputable international journals, that do refer to the proceedings of this conference: Proceedings of the International Conference on Lasers 'XX:
- J. A. Kochet et al., Observation of gain-narrowing and saturation behavior in Se x-ray laser line profiles, Phys. Rev. Lett. 68, 3291–3294 (1992).
- C. L. Gordon et al., Time-gated imaging with an ultrashort-pulse, laser-produced-plasma x-ray source, Optics Letters 20, 1056-1058 (1995).
- V. Petricevic et al., Near infrared tunable operation of chromium doped forsterite laser, Applied Optics 9, 1609-1611 (1989).
- G. J. Quarles et al., Efficient room-temperature operation of a flash-lamp-pumped, Cr,Tm:YAG laser at 2.01 µm, Optics Letters 15, 42-44 (1990).
- C. B. Edwards et al., 60 ns e-beam excitation of rare-gas halide lasers, Applied Physics Letters 36, 617-620 (1980).
- S. Popov, Dye photodestruction in a solid-state dye laser with a polymeric gain medium, Applied Optics 37, 6449-6455 (1998).
- M. D. Rahn et al., Photostability enhancement of Pyrromethene 567 and Perylene Orange in oxygen-free liquid and solid dye lasers, Applied Optics 36, 5862-5871 (1997).
- S. R. Rotman et al., Non-radiative energy transfer in non-uniform codoped laser crystals, Chemical Physics Letters 152, 311-318 (1988).
- A. S. Zibrov et al., Experimental Demonstration of Laser Oscillation without Population Inversion via Quantum Interference in Rb, Phys. Rev. Lett. 75, 1499–1502 (1995).
- G. R. Welch et al., Observation of V-type electromagnetically induced transparency in a sodium atomic beam, Found. Phys. 28, 621-638 (1998).
- M. G. Allen et al., Digital imaging of reaction zones in hydrocarbon—air flames using planar laser-induced fluorescence of CH and C2, Optics Letters 11, 126-128 (1986).
- P. Saari et al., Picosecond time- and space-domain holography by photochemical hole burning, JOSA B 3, 527-534 (1986).
- J. Menders et al., Ultranarrow line filtering using a Cs Faraday filter at 852 nm, Optics Letters 16, 846-848 (1991).
AND THIS IS JUST THE TIP OF THE ICEBERG. This clearly shows that the article does include 3rd party references and that the conference does have an impact in the field of lasers and optics.Corrigendas (talk) 14:49, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also: the proper name of this conference is the name used in the creation of the article: The International Conference on Lasers and Applications. The original name was later modified (by someone?) to "International Conference of Laser Applications" which is different to the proper name.Corrigendas (talk) 15:05, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:37, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:37, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:37, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm finding it difficult to verify the references provided. Are these materials online somewhere? Are they behind paywalls? It's hard to tell if this conference is the subject on the articles in these references or not. This was brought to AFD because searches on the conference title bring up very little. There also seems to be some disagreement about the actual title of the conference. If that could be sorted out perhaps more references where the conference is the subject of the article can be identified.--RadioFan (talk) 19:46, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If you don't have direct access to those papers (refs 15-27), the best way to take a glance at them is to use ADVANCED GOOGLE SCHOLAR and search for "Proceedings of the International Conference on Lasers". A large number of papers should come up including most of the listed references. In the Google abstract the line Proceedings of the International Conference on Lasers should appear as an included reference.Corrigendas (talk) 14:55, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ^Message 13:47, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I randomly checked one of the references above. It is a scientific paper that references another paper published in these proceedings. That is not a reliable source that discusses the subject of this article in depth. If just getting a paper referenced in another journal was sufficient, then we would have to have an article on all published proceedings of scientific meeting and all journals however insignificant. I am all for covering in wikipedia the places where scientists publish their results, but I am not seeing any level of notability here, so I suggest delete. It might be appropriate to have an article on the Society for Optical and Quantum Electronics, which awards the Einstein Prize for Laser Science and some of this material on their proceedings could be mentioned there. The Society is much more likely to have been noticed than the Proceedings. --Bduke (Discussion) 05:47, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to Google Scholar more than 2,000 scientific publications refer to the Proceedings of the International Conference on Lasers XX. Google itself lists 192,000 sites that refer to the Proceedings of the International Conference on Lasers XX. By any measure this is quite "notable". This was a conference that served as meeting place of many important scientists (many of whom are dead now) and it was documented in about 20 books (the proceedings) which are cited in several respected data bases (see refs 1-4). The society folded around 2000 and little was left to write about it, except the proceedings.Corrigendas (talk) 18:29, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I still think that an article on the Society would be more appropriate. Just because it no longer exists does not mean that it is not notable. Any set of proceedings covering several conferences will get that level of references. They do not make it notable in the wikipedia context because they are primary sources that discuss the content of papers, not the proceedings itself. We need a reliable secondary source that discusses the proceedings, and I do not see that we have that. --Bduke (Discussion) 23:34, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reference 6:

          R. Conrad, Progress in dye lasers, Applied Optics 26, 653 (1987)

is devoted entirely to the conference, in this case Lasers '86. The journal in which it was published is the prestigious Applied Optics which even has an entry in Wikipedia. Corrigendas (talk) 14:33, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Google Scholar information above more than demonstrates the notability of this topic. I'm withdrawing my nominiation of this article for deletion with the assumiption that Bduke and Corrigendas will continue their good faith work to improve this article and incorporate this into the article making its notability clearer. Perhaps there is some particular year or better yet a particular talk which has had a large impact on this area of study. Noting that in the article with reference to the scholarly work referencing it would establish notability to readers of this article.--RadioFan (talk) 15:28, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 00:16, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Schmid

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

This person does not appear to meet WP:MUSICBIO. Most of the content is sourced to personal website, and a Google search revealed a lack of reliable sources. Edge3 (talk) 06:40, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ Delete Some sources claim that he is "award-winning," but for the life of me, I can't actually figure out what awards he's won. Otherwise, I agree with the nomination. ALH (talk) 13:11, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I've looked into this a bit more. He has a book about him on Barnes and Noble (here) however, the author admits that the content is mostly from Wikipedia and other sources. Also, I took another look at WP:GNG, and I have to say that I think he simply doesn't meet even the basic guidelines for notability. So, I feel a little more strongly that the article should be deleted. ALH (talk) 03:23, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak delete~~. It seems the award is "The USA Songwriting Competition", which I would not quite label the type of "major music award" described in WP:MUSICBIO #8. Also, the subject does appear to have songs featured in TV shows/commercials, and I see some passing mentions for his work with Miley Cyrus, but I'm not finding much on him or his work in terms of significant coverage (except this from his hometown paper; listed in the article's references) aside from a few press releases. Gong show 01:04, 7 January 2013 (UTC) Changing to weak keep thanks to Paul Erik's findings, the Keyboard piece in particular. Gong show 17:56, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – In addition to what Gongshow points out, there is an entire article about him in Keyboard – Rideout, Ernie (December 2008). "Mike Schmid with Miley Cyrus", Keyboard 34 (12): 104 (Subscription required) – and an article in Ypulse: Baird, Derek (October 5, 2011). "Let It Out: Mike Schmid On Miley, Fame, Twitter, And Music For Kids". Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:33, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:06, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per nom. Any slight notability appears first to fall short on both WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG and secondly to be primarily inherited through association with Miley Cyrus. And WP doesn't do inherited notability. David_FLXD (Talk) 04:45, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If he is deleted, I suggest the name redirect to Mike Schmidt as a possible misspelling. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:56, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ^Message 13:44, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding "WP doesn't do inherited notability" – I would agree if what we found were articles about Miley Cyrus that mentioned Mike Schmid briefly. But the articles I pointed to are actually the other way around: They are articles primarily about Schmid, and they do mention that he plays keyboards in the band of someone who is much more famous than he is. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:53, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Paul Erik's and Gongshow's sources.--Arxiloxos (talk) 06:21, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:03, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rafał Moks

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

~~Fails WP:NMMA JadeSnake (talk) 08:09, 6 January 2013 (UTC)~~[reply]

Strikeout added because JadeSnake was a confirmed sockpuppet of an already banned user.Willdawg111 (talk) 20:29, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Has no fights for a top tier MMA organization so he fails WP:NMMA. Jakejr (talk) 03:21, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Who would have thought that being an M-1 Champ would be that big a deal. with his WP:SOURCES he passes WP:GNG. Especially since Notability is not temporary. I feel more educated about mma after this AFD. Thank you. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 08:17, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – as at this version of the article (of which I was a principal author), there were 22 references, with primary sources only used for uncontroversial material. He was M-1 Global Western European champion and then overall champion. His notability had been unambiguously established by that point, and what has happened to him and the article since then is irrelevant. The relevant policies are WP:N and WP:GNG, and whatever arguments there are within the MMA WikiProject over WP:NMMA cannot alter either the threshhold for retaining an article or the fact that the sources demonstrate that the threshhold has been met. EdChem (talk) 02:06, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Portland Oregon97217. Sepulwiki (talk) 04:06, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He fails WP:NMMA and he's not notable for anything but his MMA career. There are lots of sources but they appear to be routine sports coverage so he doesn't pass WP:GNG. Mdtemp (talk) 16:58, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NMMA. Sources such as Sherdog cannot be used for GNG as they are deemed trivial, routine sports coverage. No refs go into "significant detail" that is required, but are merely stat sites. Bgwhite (talk) 17:53, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:06, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per Bgwhite. Fails WP:NMMA. Dayewalker (talk) 04:49, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough top-tier fights per WP:NMMA, not notable enough to pass WP:GNG despite the sources. Former titlist with a .500 record and on a four-fight losing streak in a second-tier promotion. Luchuslu (talk) 18:02, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NMMA since he has no fights for a top tier organization. Coverage appears to be routine sports reporting, nothing significant. Papaursa (talk) 01:08, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes WP:NMMA and WP:MMANOT as he was a champion for a very good MMA organisation. Is well sourced and passes WP:GNG, WP:N and WP:ATHLETE. Above arguments such as "on a 4 fight losing streak" are completely irrelevant. Perhaps he's on a skid, but that doesn't take away from the fact that he was a champion in M-1; a top organisation. Paralympiakos (talk) 12:56, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that he was a champion of a second tier organization does not show notability according to WP:NMMA. It also must seem important to the MMA world, otherwise he probably would have gotten a shot with a top tier organization. I do agree a 4 fight loss streak is irrelevant for the MMA notability criteria, although it might explain why he's not fighting in the top tier. Mdtemp (talk) 15:26, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mdtemp, I assume you meant "unimportant" instead of "important" in your last comment. Papaursa (talk) 18:39, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ^Message 13:43, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable since he has no fights for a top tier MMA organization. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 21:58, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Hair-grooming syncope. MBisanz ^talk 00:08, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hair-brushing syndrome

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

As discussed here, the topic of the article is not clearly notable, and the sources are both self-referential and fail WP:MEDRS. Lacking proper sources, this topic is highly dubious and possibly misleading. Scray (talk) 13:37, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as article author. Obviously the sourcing to take this article to GA or above is insufficient, but media coverage is more than enough to meet WP:GNG. I've tried to write the article to avoid being misleading ; others are of course welcome to improve on my efforts. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:49, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The introductory sentence "Hair-brushing syndrome is a rare condition in which static electricity causes a potentially fatal interruption in brain function or neurological communication with the body organs" is false. It should say "Hair-brushing syndrome is a pseudoscientific medical syndrome invented by tabloid newspapers to sensationalize an incidental event." (Admittedly, this is my original research, without a reliable source.) As far as I can tell, the girl suffered one event that occurred while her mother was brushing her hair. My guess: someone happened to mention "static electricity", and the mother latched onto this. Now the poor girl is going through life with this pointless geas. This "syndrome" is never going to receive serious medical investigation because there is nothing to investigate.

However Nikkimaria is right to point out that the "syndrome" has received significant coverage in newspapers. These sources are not suitable for medical articles. Therefore this article must be presented as a non-medical article. There is value in keeping an article in Wikipedia, because readers could potentially come to Wikipedia to find out about the "syndrome". The article needs to be re-written to avoid any implication that the "syndrome" is medically validated. Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:31, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. The relevant parts of WP:GNG (including the notes) here are "reliable" and "multiple".

Tabloids aren't reliable sources for establishing the existence of rare conditions. They also can't be used to establish the existence or notability of a pseudoscientific phenomenon when they make no claim that the phenomenon is pseudoscientific. The Huff Post article mentions that someone on Gizmodo suggested this could be a case of hair-grooming syncope, but that's not enough. WP:SENSATION might apply here, especially since this seems to be a fairly routine piece of sensationalist reporting over what is ultimately a single event, a young girl's illness.
All of the references given in the article (and every mention of the subject I've been able to find elsewhere) seem to be based on a single article in the Daily Record tabloid: given that rewrites are not independent of one another, there's essentially one source, which doesn't satisfy the "sources" criterion of the WP:GNG. (The Daily Mail has possibly reinterviewed the girl's parents, but it's not clear: in that case there's two unreliable sources instead of one). It's also worth pointing out that the anonymous doctors aren't cited directly: the whole thing is based on an interview with the girl's parents.
Unless someone can find reliable sources that identify this as either a persistent pseudoscientific phenomenon (rather than dubious speculation about a single case) or an actual medical condition the article should be deleted. Alexrexpvt (talk) 15:58, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Afterthought. If the consensus ultimately leans towards preserving the content, it might better to add a section on "hair grooming syncope", which has appeared in various scholarly journals, to the Vasovagal response article, and then include a very brief reference to "hair brushing syndrome" as an alternative name. Alexrexpvt (talk) 17:01, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hair-grooming syncope. I didn't see that page till Rutebega pointed it out. The subject's already adequately covered there. Alexrexpvt (talk) 19:56, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to hair grooming syncope, although there's a paragraph about it there already. Blue lips and loss of consciousness indicate lack of blood supply, characteristic of syncope, and the girl was probably stressed out starting a new year. The sources are all unreliable sensational tabloids that covered the story three years after it broke. The fact that 17 months later, no major sources have covered it suggests that it probably isn't notable enough for an article. —Rutebega (talk) 19:36, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately that explanation would constitute original research. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:01, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to hair grooming syncope. I am not in any way qualified to determine whether or not the unfortunate girl actually suffered from the syncope, but in the absence of medical sources providing evidence for the existence of the syndrome a carefully worded merge seems like the best solution. At first I wondered if it might be another manifestation of the dreaded Glasgow effect. Ben Mac Dui 20:30, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To those voting merge: merging to hair-grooming syncope doesn't really make sense unless/until that is found to be the explanation - at the moment, it's one of three possibilities presented in sources. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:01, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that merging would be inappropriate, as WP:OR. Rather, this article under discussion is about a medical condition for which there is not one suitable reliable source, hence it should be deleted. I think the article's author simply wasn't aware of the requirements for medically-related content. Mainstream media coverage is basically irrelevant to the question of verifiability when it comes to medical conditions. -- Scray (talk) 23:42, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Alexrexpvt's original arguments - unreliable sourcing, no evidence that it is a real medical syndrome, no evidence of anything really beyond the tendency of sections of the media to filch each other's stories - and as has been pointed out, including this in Hair-grooming syncope would appear to be WP:OR. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:34, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hair-grooming syncope. Because it has been reported in the laypress, "hair brushing syndrome", although bogus, comes up on google, so we can do our readers a service by providing the redirect to the more medically accurate article. The content is already there-- no merge needed-- I believe the objections mentioned above to a redirect can be dealt with. My second alternative would be delete. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:59, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect. I don't object to redirecting it to hair-grooming syncope. I'm not saying Merge because it shouldn't be given undue weight (maybe not even mentioned) in the syncope article unless a reliable medical source notes this as a special case. Superm401 - Talk 19:45, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:25, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:25, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 07:40, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Central Texas Stars

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

As far as I can tell, this was a proposed team that never came into being (according to this source at any rate). Rather unsurprisingly, I can't find any coverage in the Google News Archive, either under "Central Texas Stars" or "Central Texas Jammers". I found a passing mention of the "Central Texas Diplomats", but it's not clear whether they were active or not. Doesn't satisfy the WP:GNG. Alexrexpvt (talk) 13:20, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The league and its current teams don't look particularly notable, let alone a team that never played a game. --Bongwarrior (talk) 23:52, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:27, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:27, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:ORG, not enough coverage to meet WP:GNG.—Bagumba (talk) 20:14, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above - looks like a non-starter. Rikster2 (talk) 16:46, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly fails the specific notability guidelines applicable to teams, businesses, and other organizations (WP:ORG). Easy call as sources are virtually non-existent. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:15, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In regards to everything leading up to the team's creation, and short if it actually becoming a team, the topic does not have enough content or coverage to warrant an article. Mkdw ^talk 20:29, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:16, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Daily Constitutional

I do not see the requirements for the notability for this article. Sorry. New England Cop (talk) 03:13, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What New England Cop probably meant to say was that this article cites exactly one source, and that isn't an independent one. So someone who did nothing to determine notability other than read the article, which is not putting deletion policy into actual practice, might think that no independent sources exist. However, independent sources reviewing and documenting this magazine such as Maestretti 2007 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFMaestretti2007 (help), Rockwell 2006 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFRockwell2006 (help) (not the most in-depth of sources, but it does tell us about the three founders), and Umbrella Online 2006 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFUmbrella_Online2006 (help) turn out to exist if one goes looking for them.
- Maestretti, Danielle (2007-01-12). "From the Stacks". UTNE Reader.
- Rockwell, Steve (2006). "A Stir in Richmond, Virginia". dart international. Vol. 9, no. 1.
- "Artist Book Reviews". Umbrella Online. Vol. 29, no. 1. Umbrella Associates. March 2006.
Uncle G (talk) 11:26, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi I just spent a few hours going through the deletion P&Ps but didn't see where it said I had to look for the sources. Can you help? Sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by New England Cop (talk • contribs) 21:57, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting - do you give people tickets if you're not sure if they have committed an offence? Assessing notability is all about sources - see WP:N. Johnbod (talk) 02:40, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am well versed in my state's traffic laws and will give out tickets there is an infraction or violation that they have committed. I spent a lot of time going through the deletion P&Ps but I didn't see where it says I had to research for references. I am new to this. Feel like I'm gettin a run around. Not so friendly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by New England Cop (talk • contribs) 04:28, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Here's a link to the policy: bullet point #7 at WP:DEL-REASON states that "Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed" may be deleted. Scrolling down the page, under the heading Proposed deletion, it reads: "An editor who believes a page obviously and uncontroversially doesn't belong in an encyclopedia can propose its deletion." The words "obviously and uncontroversially" suggest that some effort is expected of the proposer to justify the belief that a page doesn't belong. After that, it's all a question of the adequacy of references in terms of number and quality. Ewulp (talk) 05:55, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - This is so incredibly bureaucratic and unwelcoming. — Preceding unsigned comment added by New England Cop (talk • contribs) 06:06, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        You asked for assistance; I took you seriously. Sorry! Ewulp (talk) 06:36, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. May meet the threshold. There's also some coverage at vernissage.tv. Ewulp (talk) 06:36, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 00:19, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A couple of brief mentions in small publications does not constitute significant coverage in reliable sources. Nwlaw63 (talk) 12:53, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ^Message 13:16, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) TBr and ley ^{(what's up)} 18:52, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Community media

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

Current article has WP:ESSAY and WP:OR issues. To avoid overlap, the topic is best covered by the existing community radio, community television and community journalism articles. 1292simon (talk) 11:06, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. This article must be kept, because "Community Media", specifically, is an established term in EU and European Commission bodies; there are also directives and at least one resolution of the European Parliament specifically for Community Media. There are also a lot of established "Community Media" organizations all over Europe, and there are also international bodies. I will proceed updating the Reference and external links immediately. 83.168.9.146 (talk) 14:35, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

keep I have added sources (Bibliography and External Links) specifically on Community Media: UNESCO publications (UNESCO has a Chair specifically on Community Media); Resolutions and declarations from EU and EC bodies; 2-3 Books for Community Media; a couple of Community Media organizations, including a pan-european one (CMFE). The fact that "Community Media" is a term acknowledged and endorsed by important bodies like UNESCO, the EU and EC and the specific use of the term, based on this I support the opinion that this article meets notability criteria to be kept in Wikipedia, it should not be deleted, but to remain there (with the existing notices about standards) until it is written in a way that meets Wikipedia standards. 83.168.9.146 (talk) 16:20, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MJ94 (talk) 00:08, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is poorly written and under-referenced, but the subject is notable and is distinct from community journalism. Majoreditor (talk) 02:22, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ^Message 13:11, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Topic is the subject of books by reputable publishers.[21][22] Notable. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:00, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - While the article is in need of cleanup and better organization, entire books have been written about this topic. Passes WP:N. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:02, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 23:06, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Safwan

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested to nominate the under WP:BLPPROD, however the article is not unsourced. This does not affect the original delete rationale. Sir Sputnik (talk) 12:32, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 12:32, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -the PROD-to-BLPPROD conversion was bizarre to say the least, I've asked the editor involved for an explanation. As for this AfD, the article fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:44, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As stated above. Govvy (talk) 12:51, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:30, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:30, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:30, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 23:06, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Problems of the Day

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

Appears to fail the GNG; issues are similar to other books by Sarkar. There are some ghits from Sarkar followers, Ananda marga websites trying to sell the book &c - but minimal independent coverage. bobrayner (talk) 12:30, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:32, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:32, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:32, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:32, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Despite Bob's claim, this is not what I see when I make a Google search. First, this book was previously published under the name "Problem of the Day", as is mentioned in the article. The book has been in print continuously for over 50 years, and it is one of the earliest books by the author on the subject of PROUT. As such the book is referenced numerous times in the article on PROUT. The book's notability is derived by virtue of the fact that it is from a historically significant author, and it is frequently referenced by secondary sources, perhaps most notably Sohail Inayatullah. Furthermore, the book is sold on many websites besides Ananda Marga websites. Leaving aside the many websites (mostly not Ananda Marga) that sell or rent the book, here are some sample google hits that come up when searching for "'Problem of the Day' Sarkar":

here

--Abhidevananda (talk) 06:59, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I recognise that this book is mentioned repeatedly in our other articles on PROUT. This is because we have a walled garden of articles on the sarkarverse, linking to each other and dependent on primary sources. It doesn't mean that the various books and concepts mentioned over and over again in this walled garden are actually notable in the real world. The GNG is the best measure of that. bobrayner (talk) 12:21, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: Please pay attention to the false accusation made by Bob Rayner above. He alleges that the article on PROUT that I mentioned is part of a walled garden. A cursory look at just the first few paragraphs of that article reveals around 10 links to articles on Wikipedia that are well outside of what Bob refers to as the Sarkarverse (interesting term, poor use). Probably there are well over 100 such links in the entire article. Moreover, from the WhatLinksHere for the PROUT article, I see a very impressive list of articles that link to it (again, most of them well outside of the Sarkarverse). As such, that article can by no means be tagged as WP:WG. This false allegation, along with some loose and disparaging words in the AfD for this book (Problems of the Day)... very similar to the words that have been used by this same nominator for several other AfDs in respect to articles created by the same editor... quite possibly has something to do with why the article creator has not yet responded to this particular AfD or, indeed, to any message to him for days. User:Cornelius383 appears to have been an enthusiastic new editor on Wikipedia, contributing to many articles - a good number of them well outside the Sarkarverse. It would be a pity for Wikipedia to lose such a constructive participant due to any form of systematic and coordinated harassment. Creating a new article requires hours of work - often many hours. Nominating an article for deletion only takes a few seconds. --Abhidevananda (talk) 13:47, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unable to find any coverage in secondary sources independent of the subject. Fails Wikipedia:Notability (books). Location (talk) 06:44, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Location, could you please be more specific. You claim that this book "fails Wikipedia:Notability (books)". But as I read WP:NB, the situation is quite the contrary. You also make the same comment in your own, concurrent AfD at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ananda_Marga_Elementary_Philosophy, but you do not back it up there either. Yes, Bob Rayner supports your AfD in the same way as you support his AfD, which only suggests that the two of you are working in tandem (also seemingly apparent on several other Sarkar-related pages). Perhaps such 'coordination' - if that is indeed what it is - is valid on Wikipedia. I cannot say. But the question remains: Why does this book fail WP:NB? Do you consider all of the sources who directly or indirectly indicate that this book has "made a significant contribution to a significant religious movement" to be unreliable? If so, why is that? You also claim that you cannot "find any coverage in secondary sources independent of the subject". So do you consider all of the links given by me above to be completely useless? For example, I note that your proposed draft of an article on PROUT makes frequent reference to Sohail Inayatullah. Presumably, you consider him to be reliable, even if he is not entirely independent (a subjective and relative concept at best). So, pardon me, Location, but your briefly stated position here strikes me as inconsistent. Please be so kind as to clarify it for me and for anyone else who might be similarly confused. --Abhidevananda (talk) 14:46, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To be more specific: I looked for coverage in secondary sources independent of the subject necessary to meet the criteria set forth at WP:NBOOK and could find none. And, yes, I considered all of the sources above insufficient to pass the notability guidelines at WP:NBOOK that were developed by consensus. The last one in your list, for example, is a copy of the Wikipedia article. If you have other issues with my editing, there are other forums better to address your concerns. Location (talk) 15:00, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Location, the last one on the list should not have been there. And the Facebook link was perhaps a bit flippant. But some of those other links seemed to be pretty serious to me. For example, there are several links to one source that you have explicitly described as "reliable", "secondary", and "independent". Personally, I might disagree with you on some of those counts, but that was your expressed opinion just a couple days ago here. Indeed, the very book you yourself cited there also contains a reference to "Problem of the Day" on Page 215. But, hey, you have a right to your opinion, even if the rationale is vague to me. Apologies if you feel that my words were or are not adequately polite. --Abhidevananda (talk) 17:51, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete no coverage in notable sources, except one google book link which shows that it was cited in Illustrated Weekly of India, once most notable weekly English magazine published from India. ISBN number noted in article page seems to be wrong.--GDibyendu (talk) 15:35, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch about the ISBN number, Dibyendu. It seems to be a mistake proliferated on many websites. This is also somewhat embarrassing for me, as I believe that I have also included that ISBN number in some citations. Just goes to show the danger of relying too much on secondary sources. :) --Abhidevananda (talk) 17:51, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The ISBN that appears in the printed book is: 81-7252-019-0. So it looks like the 0 before the 19 was inadvertently omitted. --Abhidevananda (talk) 19:12, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Editor's note: This book is a part of the vast literary heritage of Shrii Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar and it's one of the various articles related with Sarkar, that I wrote on WP and that have been proposed for deletion by BobRainer. Have we to prefer an encyclopaedia representing the various aspects of human knowledge or have we to continuosly propose all that we don't like/agree for deletion? It's very easy to delete an article but it's more difficoult to build, or constructively help to support/expand/improve it. As a relatively recent editor I ask me: is it more useful to see in WP some experienced editors (strengthened by their advanced procedural knowledge and by a discrete logistical support of a few others) engaged almost exclusively in the easy work of articles' deletion rather than in the more difficoult task of their creation and improvement? I hope you all will understand me if I express here my strong complaint but I don't really even know where to write it.--Cornelius383 (talk) 01:33, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You have spammed dozens of articles with text about Sarkar's "vast literary heritage" &c. You should stop doing that. bobrayner (talk) 14:26, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I've to illustrate few points:
- The book has been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to a significant motion picture, or other art form, or event or political or religious movement.
- It has been used as a reference in the writings of Sohail Inayatullah.
- There are many articles published in highly-reputable newspapers in India about the book. It's less easy to access them as not all of them are online and/or not all of them have been written in English.
- There are no firm rules in WP. There are policies and guidelines that are meant to work in cooperation and not in isolation from one to each other. Citing weekly one guideline to delete an article goes contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia. Citing from Jimmy Wales,

What it really means is that, ideally, our rules should be formed in such a fashion that an ordinary helpful kind thoughtful person doesn't really even need to know the rules.
You just get to work, do something fun, and nobody hassles you as long as you are being thoughtful and kind. What we want to avoid is a situation in which people are blasted for petty offenses with rules that they could never have guessed at in the first place. Yes we have style standards for example, but if someone doesn't adhere, we just fix it and leave them a friendly note, rather than yelling at them for breaking a rule.

- Now read the above comment of Cornelius. I second that. Do you see where we have arrived? Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. --Universal Life (talk) 12:46, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Let's take a look at the google hits listed by Abhidevananda.

P.R. Sarkar's Vision Of The Future. Two quotes sourced to the book. No discussion of the book.

Sarkar's Spiritual Dialectics One quote sourced to the book. No discussion of the book.

Farming the Future: Sarkar's Unique Contributions to Agriculture One quote sourced to the book. No discussion of the book.

Women@Internet: Creating New Cultures in Cyberspace One quote sourced to the book. No discussion of the book.

A wordpress blog It's a blog that has a list of books. No discussion of the book.

Deconstructing The Information Era One quote sourced to the book. No discussion of the book.

Baba’nın Toplumsal Konuşmalarından (11) Four quotes sourced to the book. No discussion of the book.

Facebook (oh, come on.)

medbib Looks like a copy of an old version of the article.

Based on the article and the links above, in my opinion this book does not meet GNG. Garamond Lethe 01:23, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I could not find any reliable sources that actually says something about this this book as opposed to quoting from it or listing it. This means that Wikipedia cannot say anything about the book either. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:11, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability by coverage in independent sourcing. Yobol (talk) 02:14, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SIGCOV. The book does not find significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. This book cannot be considered to be notable simply because it has been used as a reference in works of Sohail Inayatullah. The sources need to address the topic directly and in detail for it to meet the general notability guideline. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 03:08, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment per WP:SIGCOV. The book does find significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. There are plenty and entirely independent Indian newspapers and magazines that devote passages from this book as a column or entire page. Some more time is needed to find them as they are usually in Hindi, rarely in English and Bengali. --Universal Life (talk) 07:50, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Printing large passages from the book doesn't establish notability. If reviews are found the article can be recreated then. Garamond Lethe 14:07, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Snow keep. No point in keeping this open, unanimous consensus to keep, and the article has been improved since nomination opened. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:31, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cosmo (restaurant)

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

I'm bringing this to AfD because the article has already been tagged as {{db-corp}} twice this morning here and here, though in my opinion a claim to be a nationwide restaurant chain asserts significance, and the article has references to The Daily Mail and STV, amongst other reliable sources. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:37, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As well as the above sources, this Croydon News source states Cosmo is "One of the largest restaurants in the UK" and this Guardian source is a rather uncomplimentary review of one restaurant and this Express and Star source is another review of one of the restaurants. Enough coverage in reliable sources to pass WP:GNG. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:00, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:18, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:37, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:37, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:37, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This needs clean up not deletion. Insomesia (talk) 19:39, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep You brought this to AFD even though you don't want it deleted? Uh... can someone do a speedy close here? Dream Focus 19:41, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is possible, though unusual, for editors to do a "procedural AfD" for articles other editors think should be deleted (in this case, two editors independently wanting it to be speedied, though one since retracted). --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:07, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'll go with a speedy close for now and hope it is indeed improved and made more encyclopaedic and less corporate. ww2censor (talk) 22:56, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep. --Milowent • ^hasspoken 01:28, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- a relatively small restaurant chain. Rather a lot of the citations appear to be to the company website, but I assumne it meets the verifiable test. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:49, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep More than enough references. --DThomsen8 (talk) 20:39, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Its claims to have Britain's largest restaurant are sufficient. It also serves very good food (yes, yes, I know that's not a good reason for keeping, but I thought I'd add it anyway!). I think Ritchie333's reasons for bringing this to AfD were perfectly acceptable. Now hopefully we can let this one rest without any more spurious speedy tags being added. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:16, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 07:40, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Books Review On Jasmine Revolution

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

Appears to be just what the title says, an essay reviewing books about the Jasmine Revolution. InShaneee (talk) 10:50, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. InShaneee (talk) 12:06, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#ESSAY and WP:No original research. A highly promotional tone is used for several of the books, "referenced" by sales links, and I can't see anything worth merging to Arab Spring. Literature review on Jasmine revolution, created by an editor with a similar username was speedy deleted G11 a few weeks ago. Altered Walter (talk) 10:54, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
1 Star, Would Not Recommend. There might be a site were something like this would be appropriate, but Wikipedia ain't it. Delete as per nom. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 18:39, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a website used for essays that are in violation of the original research guideline. TBr and ley ^{(what's up)} 23:40, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Bibliography lists are a valid type of article, but Arab Spring#Further reading has a much longer list of books, so I don't see any point in saving this. --Colapeninsula (talk) 00:10, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:48, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 07:40, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dubtech

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

Original research with no reliable sources, the article appears to have been created as an advertisement for a DJ mix. Searching for "dubtech" on google brings up one result in a book about house music from 1999 which is obviously unrelated to dubstep. - filelake shoe  10:05, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per filelakeshoe. Kaini (talk) 11:27, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete issues with sources and term notability. Most likely the 1999 ref is a conjunction of the words "dub techno." Semitransgenic _talk. 14:51, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:51, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:51, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless expanded and properly sourced during AFD period. Looks like WP:NEO to me. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:51, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:09, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of foreign football players in Vodafonedeildin

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

Contested PROD; original rationale of "Unreferenced list of non-notable players" removed with comment of "em prod. This is not to say the article should stay but the reason for deletion is not sound, there are clearly notable players here. perhaps should be reproposed with proper rationale." To expand further on the PROD rationale - playing in this league does not make you notable (per WP:NFOOTBALL), and the subject of foreign players in the league is itself not notable as it has not been the subject of significant, third-party coverage. Other leagues have - but not this one. Giant Snowman 09:34, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:37, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with the nomination, I contested the PROD due to the wording. There are notable players in the list, so the rationale was wrong and I did not feel it right that an article could be deleted with an incomplete rationale and clarification was necessary in order to ensure that the deletion procedure was robust. However, it is correct that the subject of foreign players in the Faroe Islands is not notable. Fenix down (talk) 09:42, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If it's kept I'd suggest a rename to remove the league sponsor from the title. Funny ^Pika! 14:09, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- I agree with the nomination and FunnyPika's comment as well - I initially thought this was a joke/hoax article. I see no reason for ANY of these lists - they're either going to be too big, too incomplete, poorly defined or filled with redlinks - just like this article here. The "poorly defined" comment refers to the issue of what exactly constitutes a foreign player: are they foreign if they were born in the base country but play for another country? Are they foreign if they were born abroad to one or two parents of base country, or if they hold dual nationality in a similar way? Are naturalized players still foreign? Or, as some people would say, if they were born in the country to foreign parents - does that make them foreign? In this specific example, are Danish people foreign? I know there are criteria that are set, but I still feel the need to make this point. Lukeno94 (talk) 14:20, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It's quite easy to define the criteria for inclusion in the list (and this one does). That's no reason to delete. Jogurney (talk) 15:33, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But this list doesn't because it, like many of the other lists does not define "foreign" which is Luke's point. Fenix down (talk) 18:22, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It indicates that "foreign" is someone born outside of the Faroes and not capped by the Faroes or born in the Faroes and capped by a national team other than the Faroes. It's probably not the best possible definition, but one that is easily applied. Jogurney (talk) 20:46, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I feel the need to expand my comment a bit - we'd have to have a standardization of the definition across all of these articles, which wouldn't work - example: Northern Irish player playing in the Republic of Ireland, or England, they'd be "foreign" by this definition, but would probably not be regarded as being foreign. Also, since when is someone born in Denmark a foreigner in the Faeroe Isles? That really doesn't work. Lukeno94 (talk) 09:24, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if by any chance the article is kept, it will need renaming because the sponsored name of the league is no longer Vodafonedeildin. Another reason why article titles should always use the unsponsored name of a league..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:56, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yet again this is just trying to do what a category can do, but then how many players have articles!! It is a lot of non-notable this time. Plus Listcraft! Govvy (talk) 12:08, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unlike many similar lists, I cannot find evidence that this topic has generated significant coverage in reliable sources (sufficient to pass the GNG). I disagree with most of the "delete vote" reasoning above, but I don't think we should keep this list if the topic is not notable. Jogurney (talk) 17:00, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:05, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:05, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Soft delete - undeletion may be requested at WP:REFUND. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 10:27, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bassel Abdallah

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

Non-notable per WP:BIO. The Arabic Wikipedia article appears to have no real content. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:10, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:31, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:31, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:31, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:06, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The only content on the Arabic Wikipedia is "from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" in Arabic; but this has no import on the notability of the subject. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 14:27, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme (talk) 22:48, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. That's certainly an impressive list of references. Are any of them any good? If no, then delete. Howicus (talk) 23:19, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 23:09, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 09:28, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Weak consensus is to delete (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:10, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Khowar Academy

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

Non-notable per WP:ORG -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:15, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: Seems significant, based on a quick web search. Publishingt Chitral Vision would also be a source of notability. I would caution against deleting pages which might not have sufficient English articles at the ready, yet.
Sources and References provided as per request, please remove the deletion log: - Akbaralighazi (talk) 03:57, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:11, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 04:18, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not covered by reliable, independent sources. Does not appear to be notable. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 13:44, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 23:00, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References included in the article by Akbar Ali, please do not delete this article and remove the deletion log. -- Mirajbibi (talk) 04:40, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the Pakistani Literary association, please do not delete -- Zaheeruddin25 (talk) 04:44, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 09:28, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG: No coverage in reliable independent sources is cited. Sandstein 11:15, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Transwiki then delete. Definitions have been transwiki'd j⚛e decker ^talk 16:43, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Digital exhaust

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

More of a definition, tagged for notability for over 4 years. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 21:38, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:NOTDIC TheMesquito (talk) 04:21, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:13, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:13, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Wiktionary. Neither "digital exhaust" nor "exhaust data" seem to be there, but with the sources here plus a couple of post-2007 additions (e.g. Forbes in 2011 and New Scientist in 2012) it would appear to meet Wiktionary's inclusion criteria. Cnilep (talk) 01:29, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 09:27, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki per Cnilep - it belongs there. Lukeno94 (talk) 14:27, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The definition is now at Wiktionary:digital exhaust. Cnilep (talk) 07:29, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Due to the low participation, this is a soft delete. Undeletion may be requested at WP:REFUND. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 06:09, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rico Beats

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

Little is known about this producer. Most of the information (all 3 sentences) come from one reference which I'm not convinced sources all of the information given. Per WP:BLP, I'd classify this as a violation of notability. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 16:04, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There is currently one source in the article which confirms his work with the three artists mentioned. There are other sources out there, e.g. MTV, The Source, Billboard. He's at least borderline notable. What exactly is a 'violation of notability' anyway? --Michig (talk) 16:16, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I mean that he hasn't really received coverage as a primary topic. There's information about him working with notable artists, and there's coverage about those artists/songs but as a person he hasn't received extensive coverage. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 16:40, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I found the original Billboard link here and found other results here and here (all recent and the second one mentions a different artist, Dominic Lord). Additional searches at both Google News and Books provided nothing useful. He has certainly associated himself with well-known artists but I think it's probably too soon for now. I have no prejudice towards a future article when there is more in-depth coverage about him. SwisterTwister talk 23:02, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 02:24, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 00:32, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 17:37, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 09:22, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of lakes in Pennsylvania. MBisanz ^talk 23:05, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Highland Lake (Warren Center, Pennsylvania)

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

No references, tagged for notability for over 4 years. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 21:36, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - one of literally hundreds of thousands of tiny lakes around the globe, each with their own (mostly undocumented) history. I'd love to say "Keep": but can't do so with a clear conscience, given the current utter lack of evidence of any species of notability. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:22, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:11, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect and add to List of lakes in Pennsylvania. It's on the USGS map (upper right corner)[23], but none of the history is particularly notable or referenced at all, and location and altitude don't satisfy WP:GEOLAND. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:46, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:51, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a geographic feature, or Redirect to List of lakes in Pennsylvania. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:08, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Vagurampatty. MBisanz ^talk 23:05, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vagurampatty Railway Bridge

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

This is just a brand new bridge. Can't see how this is notable. JetBlast (talk) 14:44, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:37, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:37, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While a lack of sources seems a good reason to delete, the nominator is cautioned that being "just a brand new bridge" is not. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:30, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thats not the reason, the following sentence is the reason. Just pointing out it has no historic value. --JetBlast (talk) 00:14, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- - WP:JNN would cover that. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:10, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Vagurampatty. HOwever wonderful the bridge, I doubt it needs an article. It might also be merged to the railway it is on, but that is not stated. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:15, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 00:16, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme (talk) 06:37, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Mkdw ^talk 09:05, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of birds by common name

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

It is of next to no use to readers. It is not actually a list of birds by common name. It is a list that is separated into the common names of groups of birds. The articles and categories relating to the groups such as owls, penguins, parrots etc are of a far greater use than this list. WP editors have a fixation for lists over actual prose and this is yet another example. Additionally, if the list was complete it would apparently contain 9,721 entries. This is unwieldy for one page and I would oppose the creation of any Lists of groups of birds by common name or suchlike. There are comments on the talk page about the utility of this page. Can they be used as pseudo-votes?? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:55, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. 05:57, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. 05:57, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Keep per WP:LISTPURP, a functional navigational aid, particularly per the number of page views the page has: see Wikipedia article traffic statistics for this article. With page views consistently over 1,000 per day, the article is certainly of use to Wikipedia's readers. Also keep per WP:NOTDUP. Unimpressed with the deletion rationale here. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:42, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Odd. It is more popular than List of birds. Anyway popular does not mean it is good. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 17:44, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Obviously birds are a notable topic and one of great interest. List of birds lists them by their scientific names and so is not so useful to the average reader. This list lets non-experts easily find the article on the bird they are interested in. It also provides an overview of the relatedness of bird species. Steve Dufour (talk) 22:47, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:46, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for reasons given by Northamerica1000 and Steve Dufour. This is a valid and useful resource for an encyclopedia to have. --Orlady (talk) 21:09, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as useful resource. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:46, 22 January 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Common sense really. This is a useful list for people to find what they are looking for. Something this obvious shouldn't even have to be explained. Dream Focus 01:14, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 18:17, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Nanton

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable individual lacking ghits and Gnews of substance. Emmy is a regional award for 9 minute film. Article "references" are spotty at best. Appears to fail WP:BIO. reddogsix (talk) 05:20, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

Emmy Award winner.
13 time Telly Award winner.
co-authored best-sellers.
New York Times article on his company and an article in Le Figaro (second largest national newspaper in France).

I did a bit of clean up on the article. I think this was a classic case of a peacock article that was notable but not sourced well and needed significant NPOV trimming. I would say notability had been established under WP:AUTHOR and WP:NACTOR/WP:ENT and the remaining are surmountable problems for a stub/start article. Mkdw ^talk 08:08, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As well as coverage in reliable sources, he appears to pass point 5 of WP:AUTHOR : "The person's work (or works) ... (c) has won significant critical attention." I think an Emmy and numerous Telly awards count as "significant critical attention". --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:37, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:26, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:26, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:26, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:26, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Barbados-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:26, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I was all set to !vote "Keep" based on the Emmy alone. However, as the nom points out, this is not an Emmy in the sense of the national Emmy awards that we are used to seeing in articles. The director received an "Ohio Valley Regional Emmy Award" for his 7-minute film: see [24]. So it's not an Emmy, it's an emmy. This is an award of such small potatoes (in the big scheme of things; I'm sure Mr. Nanton is justifiably proud) that even IMDB doesn't bother to note it ([25],[26]). Based on this, I'm discounting the "Emmy" as a basis to keep. I have no judgment based on the rest of the factors, so don't actually cast a !vote. TJRC (talk) 00:38, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are three types of Emmy's: Prime-time, Daytime, and Regional. He received a regional Emmy, but still an award from the National Academy of Television Arts and Sciences (a presenter of all three). I understood that his Emmy was a regional one, but all the same I think there is certainly a degree of notability about this person. These are one of these AfD's that hangs in the shadow of articles about people with a significant amount of notability. The same policies that protect them will invariable protect other less-known but still notable people. Mkdw ^talk 01:10, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, good deal of coverage amongst secondary sources, plus the notable award recipient status. — Cirt (talk) 21:25, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 00:10, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

松山

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

This is a dab page created by a user in 2011, attempting to combine Matsuyama (disambiguation) (which he redirected to this one but I've since undone) and Songshan on the premise that they are written the same way in Japanese and Chinese. Obviously, this is entirely unnecessary. Not only does this page duplicate two other suitable pages, it does so in a way that violates WP:UE by having a title parsed in CJK characters. —Ryulong (琉竜) 04:57, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There is little reason for the outcome of this debate to not follow that of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/南山, as community consensus, embodied in WP:FORRED, has not changed in the intervening 16 months since the end of the 南山 discussions of September 2011. GotR ^Talk 05:36, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do you honestly think that consensus won't change in over a year's time? And how does WP:FORRED cover this when we have the actual page titled in the foreign language, rather than some redirects? Also, it's kind of disingenuous to restore the redirect you made at Matsuyama (disambiguation) and remove entries from Songshan, while leaving everything at 松山 and not eliminating Songshan as you did Matsuyama.—Ryulong (琉竜) 06:44, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
1) In the absence of evidence showing otherwise, the status quo is the status quo. If it has indeed changed, then there is nothing I can do about the past; CCC is a moot point. 2) "Songshan" can be meant as 嵩山 well; please be WP:COMPETENT before rushing to conclusions about whether I am disingenuous. 3) A DAB page isn't an "article" as, for example, Mount Song is. GotR ^Talk 06:57, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So just because "Matsuyama" is always writen as 松山 and "Songshan" also exists as that, there should be a unified disambiguation page for the two terms when in English no one is going to want something known as "Songshan" when they're looking for "Matsuyama"?—Ryulong (琉竜) 10:38, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let me rephrase myself, why should all entries that match 松山 be on one page and all the entries that are 松山 and Songshan omitted from "Songshan"? It just seems to me that you want "Songshan" to just be about the holy mountain rather than serving as an actual disambiguation page leading people to other articles that may be titled "Songshan" and just happen to be "Pine Mountains".—Ryulong (琉竜) 11:00, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"It just seems to me that you want 'Songshan' to be just about the holy mountain"—that is ridiculous and I never claimed anything as such. I doubt the subdistrict of Zhuzhou, Hunan (hundreds of kilometres away from Mount Song itself) is named after the mountain. I won't argue about anything else any longer; I'll let others do the talking. GotR ^Talk 15:57, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, useful joint Chinese-Japanese disambiguation page. Having the title in characters seems to be the easiest way to describe what the dab page is about. I can't think of an "English" title that is even half as good as the current one. —Kusma (t·c) 09:35, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This page does what its supposed to. If it didn't exist, I really don't think the searchbox would suffice. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:45, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Easy. There's searches for the Japanese form "Matsuyama" and the Mandarin form "Songshan", both of which exist as separate disambiguation pages and there's no real confusion between the two.—Ryulong (琉竜) 10:36, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Then again, won't people arrive here because they typed 松山 in the search box? And isn't this supposed to be English Wikipedia? I don't know what to think now. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:40, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. There's no real reason to have this as a disambiguation, and certainly no reason to remove all entries from another page because they match this one. It seems that GOTR wants only entries named after Mount Song on Songshan, while all entries whose CJK characters translate to "Pine Mountain" on this page, including those that are Japanese in origin. It's going to be rare that someone's going to type these CJK characters into the search bar on the English Wikipedia. If anything, this page should be a dab page leading people to Songshan and Matsuyama (disambiguation) rather than a unified disambiguation for anything that translates as "Pine Mountain".—Ryulong (琉竜) 10:50, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep this and any other foreign-script alternative name disambiguation page that does not correspond to a single English transliteration. Here's the flowchart:
1. Identify foreign-script alternative title
2. Redirect that title to the article, since the article is titled using English. Alternative title redirects per WP:AT: "All significant alternative titles, names, or forms of names that apply to a specific article should be made to redirect to that article.", and this is what {{R from alternative language}} exists for.
3. If the alternative title is ambiguous, create a disambiguation page for that alternative title, also per WP:AT: "If they are ambiguous, it should be ensured that the article can at least be reached from a disambiguation page for the alternative term."
4. Since there is no one target appropriate for the redirect 松山, a disambiguation page must exist. (If this is deleted, where would you redirect 松山 to instead, since it is a valid alternative-language redirect title?)
See also Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 June 15#Category:Disambiguation pages with Chinese character titles -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:43, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But I absolutely agree the existence of and contents of this dab page should have no effect on the contents of the transliterated-title disambiguation pages. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:45, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a disambiguation landing page. The whole point in these pages is, while this is the English Wikipedia, it doesn't prevent people from searching for articles based on its original name. Here 松山 can translate to both Matsuyama (Japanese) and Songshan (Chinese).

As per WP:WPDAB-CJKV, in lieu of WP:UE it states "CJKV disambiguation should be used whenever a simple Roman character redirect will not work," e.g. where there are multiple translations of the same character(s). Suppose a user came here with only the characters 松山, they may not know whether they want Matsuyama, Songshan or whatever variant. It would be unfair to the other language if one were to have redirect preference over the other. There could be a case for the characters to redirect to one of the main articles and have a disambiguation page coming off that, if one was more well known than the other (like 九龍), but you can't just have them pointing to one and not the other.

In regards to content, whether to have all the links on one disambiguation page (松山) or to have a double disambiguation (one disambiguation (松山) linking to two separate disambiguation pages (Matsuyama and Songshan)), you should probably discuss this at WP:WPDAB. Funny ^Pika! 13:54, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you JHunterJ and FunnyPika for clearing these things up. However, the issue still stands that it seems GotR will want to eliminate one of the other pages in favor of this one as its creation seems to have only been to keep Songshan devoid of places that are known as "Pine Mountain", despite both being pronounced and transliterated the same way. What should be done?—Ryulong (琉竜) 14:21, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Revert, and then resolve the dispute normally. I'll help. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:09, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I haven't slightest idea about the difference between Mandarin Chinese or Japanese, nor am I that bothered: however, as an English speaker on an English Wikipedia, "松山" is not a term I would ever search for, whereas I might come across Matsuyama and/or Songshan on the web and search for it here. That said, I see the answer as being simple: either you have full duplication across 松山 and the translated articles (which, although against Wikipedia standards, may also be valid), or you have both of these articles redirect to 松山, with all content being there. I suppose you could also scrap this page altogether, and on each particular page, you could put "this disambig page is for the Mandarin Chinese/Japanese translation of 松山. For the Japanese/Mandarin Chinese translation, see here" (obviously with better wording). Lukeno94 (talk) 14:51, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I've no objection to keeping a CJK disambiguation page when those characters may have different common transliterations. However, it seems a problem to duplicate the contents of the various disambiguation pages. Would it not make more sense to have this CJK disambiguation page merely point to Matsuyama (disambiguation) Songshan (disambiguation)? older ≠ wiser 15:28, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The reader is better served by having the content duplicated (rather than having to click through two disambiguation pages, or even three if they don't know which transliteration applies). Not all duplication is bad. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:32, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Except that these pages will become out of sync. English editors are unlikely to know about or care about the CJK page and are likely to only update the corresponding English-language pages. Similarly, if a CJK-savvy editor updates the CJK page but not the corresponding English-language pages, very few editors will have both pages on their watchlists. older ≠ wiser 15:44, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. In fact, every disambiguation page might get out of sync with Wikipedia. We could link the grouped pages through their "See also" sections to help the reader until editors can get the pages caught up again. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:57, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dab pages will always run a bit behind the encyclopedia, but it doesn't help to incorporate designs that makes such synchronization issues more likely. older ≠ wiser 17:23, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, we have a choice here between better reader navigation or easier for editors to keep it in sync. As far as I know, consensus goes with "burden the editors" over "burden the readers". -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:11, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how one additional click to another disambiguation page is such an burden for a reader -- especially when compared with the burden of having to decipher incomplete/incompatible information in what should be duplicate information. older ≠ wiser 20:17, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You identified the burden: one additional click. I didn't claim it was onerous, but it's certainly right up there with "one blue link per entry" or "put the blue link at the beginning of the line". But this discussion would be better suited for the dab project generally. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:03, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I also identified a different burden, that of expecting a reader to know or care about multiple disambiguation pages that cover essentially the same subjects but with possibly incomplete or incoherent coverage. From a reader's perspective, I think pages like this might be better off being a sort of broad concept dab that briefly explain why the characters are ambiguous and then link to the related disambiguation pages for disambiguation of the English-language terms. older ≠ wiser 21:31, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's no problem with a broad-concept article, if one could be written encyclopedically. However, there's no burden on the reader to know or care about multiple disambiguation pages introduced with the duplicate solution: all of the cross-dab links are still there in the non-duplicate arrangement too, so the reader does not suddenly get burdened with them when additional information (none of which would be incoherent, and making each more complete than it was) is added to each dab. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:07, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 01:28, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 01:28, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 01:28, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'Keep - It fits with a convention of CJK dabpages. Duplication is a good thing, especially with any content a user might not know exactly how to find. Also, dispite what is said above about CJK dab pages, people use them. I'm a native english speaker and I need to search for things in Chinese sometimes because the translation is not obvious or totally standardized. There ends up being a lot of overlap and disambiguation become a neccesity. - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 12:05, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Mkdw ^talk 09:05, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Niu_Ben

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Niu Ben

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

Blank page, no information — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThePeriodicTable123 (talk • contribs) 4:16 am, Today (UTC+0)

Keep Article needs sources, but it is not blank. It was blanked by a vandal before nomination. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:34, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ah, didn't see the vandal-blank history, that explains the tag. Can we speedy close this? per GB hits for instance. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:13, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have added ref for Niu Ben from China Great Biographical Dictionary (1921-2013), created a stub for the dictionary, and listed it at Biographical dictionary#China and Chinese. Perhaps that article could be linked somewhere relevant to BLP deletion discussions. Basically if someone alive makes it into this dictionary then they are notable. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:47, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:NACTOR. Page sources state that he won Best Supporting Actor on four occasions (a Golden Rooster and a Hundred Flowers Award for The Herdsman in 1983, as well as a Hundred Flowers Award for both 夫唱妻合 in 1997 and 媳妇你当家 in 1999). Unsure what the English translations of the last two films are so I'm not going to attempt. Funny ^Pika! 15:16, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears to meet WP:NACTOR. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:18, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:37, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:37, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article could use some more sources for the biography and additional translation for the filmography but he has received two notable awards so that makes him notable as well. SwisterTwister talk 19:20, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Ten (band)#2010-present. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:09, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Mitchell (guitarist)

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

Article lacks reliable references and it appears that the band is notable, not the guitarist himself. YuMa NuMa ^Contrib 00:10, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, the band is notable. People were asking for a short bio of his so I thought it would be nice to have one. Plus, the article looks more complete if it includes the bios of the rest of the band members.~Michael Spiggos— Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael13111983 (talk • contribs) 16:48, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The band may be notable but you must demonstrate why this particular musician is notable, please see Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions#I_like_it. Additionally, creating articles for all of the members to make it complete is not a valid reason for notability either and actually floods Wikipedia with unnecessary and potentially non-notable pages. With some articles, a brief bio will be added on the band's article (example:One_Direction#Members). SwisterTwister talk 22:59, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:07, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:07, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge / redirect with Ten (band). Doesn't appear to have achieved individual notability, so per WP:NMUSIC, this is the thing to do. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:44, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ten (band)#2010-present - There wouldn't be much for a merge, at least not much that would be considered appropriate and not disjointing. I haven't found any significant and reliable evidence for his work with the other bands but I found reviews including this one that compliments his solos on the 2012 Ten album but these reviews aren't enough for separate article at this time. I'm voting redirect with absolutely no prejudice for a future article. I would have redirected it myself but I want a full consensus. SwisterTwister talk 22:59, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 04:07, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect He's not independently notable. There's no material with a reliable source to merge, and a lot of it's very vague - "qualifications in both Rock School and Music Theory" could mean almost anything. Could copy over the list of bands he was in, but nothing else worth saving. --Colapeninsula (talk) 00:14, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus due to low participation. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 10:34, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Captive Animals Protection Society

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

As it stands, the subject does not appear to pass the notability guidelines. Before I found it in an odd reference on a music festival page, it had 7 refs, 5 of which were to the same page on the group's website, one of which was dead (a daily mail article hosted on some Irish Circus website?), and the other two are a passing mention by the BBC and a feature in the Thurrock Gazette. It seems to just be a puff page at this point. —Ryulong (琉竜) 08:59, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've added some references to the article that demonstrate this organisation meets WP:ORG. A legacy animal rights organisation, CAPS has been around for over 50 years and was instrumental in persuading Blackpool Tower Circus to cease using animals. Their undercover investigations, reports, and ongoing protests regularly receive significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. As a side note, while the article was indeed overly reliant on primary sources, just deleting them all makes it more difficult to improve the article. Gobōnobō ⁺ ^c 23:51, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 00:45, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per Gobōnobō - Ret.Prof (talk) 18:39, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MJ94 (talk) 00:13, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 04:06, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Per NOTDUP, there's nothing inherently wrong with having a category coexist with a list. To those who suggested renaming - I'm a bit wary of using 'notable'. Given Wikipedia's specific definition of notability, and that the list only contains people who have been deemed notable, adding the term seems redundant. That, however, is a discussion which can easily be had on the article's talk page. m.o.p 09:39, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of electricians

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

Indiscriminate, not a notable attribute for a list; many people have been electricians and none of these people are notable for being electricians. See WP:NLIST and WP:LISTPEOPLE. I don't see the encyclopediac value of a collection based on former occupations. Wtshymanski (talk) 16:21, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY JayJay^{What did I do?} 17:35, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which criterion of WP:NOTDIRECTORY would that be? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:47, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How about number 7: "Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations". People who used to be electricians hardly seems to be a " sufficient basis to create an article" nor a "culturally significant phenomenon". --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:48, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A cross-categorization requires two categories to cross with each other. This is a single categorization. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:17, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as duplicative of Category:Electricians (which currently contains 43 notable people). I will note, though that for union leaders, and union activists who go into politics, being an electrician may be in fact a notable aspect of their lives. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:45, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Category:Electricians suffices. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 00:41, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Categories and lists are complementary and this list is in perfect accordance with WP:NLIST and WP:LISTPEOPLE, so I don't understand how those guidelines can be used to support deletion of this list. As stated by Orange Mike above being an electrician is a notable aspect of many notable people's lives, Lech Wałęsa being the obvious example, so I also don't understand how he comes to the conclusion that this should be deleted. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:47, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This list was created following Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 March 15#Category:Electricians by nationality. This was subsequently discussed at WP:DRV and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 April 1#Category:Electricians, at which there was no consensus about the list. IMHO the list should be kept as it presents more information than the category, namely the grounds for the notability achieved by each electrician with an article. – Fayenatic London 20:47, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisting comment: Please bear in mind WP:NOTDUP when commenting.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 00:14, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - mostly in line with Orange Mike above. For some on the list, being an electrician obviously had some role to play in their notability (like electricity industry unionists-turned-politicians). But for others, the role was inconsequential. It's just a bit too arbitrary for me. For me it's like List of blondes or List of machanics. But I'm not hugely excited by the category either. I just can't see much value in either of them. Stalwart111 10:22, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree not all of them belong there; that's a question for editing, as always. Lists and categories are complemenyaty, and the existence of one should be taken as presumptive justification for the existence of the other. It can provide much more relevant information, like what someone did that makes them qualified to be on the list. The argument that categories suffice does not say why they do, or why the argument that the lists give more information is not a good argument. DGG ( talk ) 16:16, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 04:05, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not needed. Category:Electricians does the job just fine. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:15, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As has already been pointed out more than once in this discussion, categories and lists are complementary. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:32, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NOTDUP. Then rename the article to List of notable electricians. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:45, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete Categories and lists are not duplicative. BUT. As a category on a person its very unobtrusive. As a list - this people are not notable for their electrician status. No reason to provide a list otf them this way, especially when it is an entirely blue-linked list with no content, where the category covers the value 100%. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:39, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with the rename of notable, and then trim the list accordingly. Tiggerjay (talk) 17:17, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - see WP:ODD and WP:BARE - notable people who are or were coincidentally electricians could make a good article, if it were sourced. Renaming it, per NA1000, is fine with me. Bearian (talk) 20:59, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 10:52, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nuno Pontes

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

no notable prisoner. Only known for one news event. Few google hits and the local paper report reference does not support most of the claims. noq (talk) 13:50, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Breakout (2010 TV series), or delete. I imagine an article could be created on The Pittsburgh Six[27][28][29][30], but redirect elsewhere until it is created. Location (talk) 23:32, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 00:58, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 17:45, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 04:03, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no redirect Run of the mill prison breakout with a generic prison breakout television show watched by under a million people covering it. Nothing really exciting here that needs an article. Nate • (chatter) 06:06, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:20, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rah Crawford

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

Tagged for notability for 5 years; couldn't establish notability Boleyn (talk) 19:40, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 20:19, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:30, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:30, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep #1 and #2 deletion spree. Unscintillating (talk) 04:03, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Nominating a large number of articles - all of which have been tagged for notability for at least 5 years - does not meet speedy keep no. 2. Boleyn (talk) 09:03, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - ~~See the clause on "unquestionable disruption". Unscintillating (talk) 12:37, 26 January 2013 (UTC)~~[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 04:01, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This diff shows that the statement "couldn't establish notability" in the nomination is based on surveying the article. Notability is not a content guideline, and notability exists independently of the existence and content of Wikipedia articles. Non-notability can never be determined by surveying an article. I have added WP:SK#1 "no argument for deletion" to the above WP:SK#2. Unscintillating (talk) 01:51, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That comment was based on me slightly misreading the comment before, and my comment being misread - and wasn't related to this nomination anyway! Please comment on the notability or otherwise of Rah Crawford. Boleyn (talk) 09:39, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The previous comment asserts that there has been a misreading, but provides neither clarification nor evidence. Evidence has already been provided in this AfD of a sequence of 249 consecutive delete !votes, almost all of which are AfD nominations. The claim that the diff I provided "wasn't related to this nomination" is not responsive to this evidence. Both of these clauses constitute groundless opinion, a pattern of which WP:Articles for deletion#How to contribute identifies as defining disruption. Unscintillating (talk) 12:37, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - [Notice: Off-topic comment refactored to talk page]. Unscintillating (talk) 09:19, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding the request, it ignores the benefit of a speedy keep. A speedy keep closed with no prejudice to speedy renomination allows the nomination to be improved or properly prepared and thus saves the time of AfD participants. An exception might be BLPs, which applies here, but a cursory review shows that sources already exist in the article such that there is no need for an urgent AfD. There is no WP:Deadline at Wikipedia. In addition, I have previously responded at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ioannis Diakidis. Unscintillating (talk) 12:37, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:ARTIST this does not pass notability requirements. Per WP:GNG, the only useful source is the ABC affiliate news link, which although a fluff piece, is at least a decent RS. The New York Times sources are trivial mentions, nothing more. The other online sources are local coverage but are not enough to establish notability. freshacconci talktalk 02:40, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "fluff piece" is not a notability criteria, WP:GNG does not discriminate against local sources, and two art reviews in the New York Times each with one in-depth sentence about the topic are not like two listings in a phone book. Unscintillating (talk) 03:07, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - A one-line mention is the very definition of a trivial mention. Local coverage likewise if it is not substantial, and it's not. None of the coverage is beyond trivial mentions other than the ABC affiliate and that's why I said it was an ok RS (why you mention that one is beyond me: it's fluff but a RS. My opinion). In short, this does not pass WP:GNG. freshacconci talktalk 03:30, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - You seem to understand the guidelines enough to know that when I mentioned "two listings in a phone book" I was citing examples of trivial mentions. A bigger issue is that notability is not defined by the sources listed in a Wikipedia article. Unscintillating (talk) 04:51, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - A one line mention in a long article is trivial. We'll have to see what the closing admin decides, I guess. freshacconci talktalk 16:02, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Euthanasia in the United Kingdom. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 10:54, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel James (assisted suicide)

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

A non-notable news story. No lasting impact and fails WP:ONEEVENT. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:16, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Borderline A7 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:12, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 00:59, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Euthanasia in the United Kingdom, which is an article that needs expansion. I don't think there's any way to claim he's notable himself beyond WP:BLP1E, though his death received widespread press coverage[31][32][33]. There is also some evidence that the event had lasting importance in causing a change to the law[34], which might make it notable, but probably we would require more evidence of a significant lasting effect. Hence, merge. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:19, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 22:52, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 04:00, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even if he was notable, it'd still just be a poorly cited BLP stub. As it is, notability is barely asserted. I could also support a Merge. —Rutebega (talk) 18:46, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How exactly is someone principally known for his death a BLP stub? The words "assisted suicide" are a clue. --Colapeninsula (talk) 00:18, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Per SK #1, The nomination does not advance a valid argument for deletion (see WP:DEL-REASON for some examples of what constitutes valid deletion rationales). "Not useful" in the nomination is entirely subjective. Furthermore, the nomination is incorrect in stating that the article had "no information" at the time of nomination: per this diff page, information and a source was present prior to the nomination for deletion, although there were several empty sections. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:20, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Geitodoris bacalladoi

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

Not useful. No information. Shangmeister (talk) 01:45, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 January 21. Snotbot t • c » 01:56, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It is more or less established that species are inherently notable. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) (formerly R——bo) 05:59, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agreed, the Wikipedia convention is that species are considered notable. I've added their location found and a reference for it to the article. Mark viking (talk) 06:19, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : all species are notable. Most of these articles are started as a stub like this one, but are later expanded (and this may take some years, as we are working systematically with a bot, checking every family and genus, one by one). JoJan (talk) 16:09, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 07:40, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Viro Corporation

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

Article about a company whose existence can not be verified. The article was speedy deleted once as a hoax. It seems to be entirely original research, bordering on a conspiracy theory. I'm unable to locate any sources. - Mr X 01:41, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No question. It's a hoax. BlueRoll18 (talk) 01:58, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 21:21, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 21:21, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 21:21, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The whole thing reads like a WP:HOAX to me: "advisor & Co"; "conpsirators"; "hypothecial company"! Peterkingiron (talk) 17:55, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Entirely unreferenced and detailed Google News searches only provided results for another pharmaceutical company, ViroPharma, which has received news attention where as this one (Viro Corporation) seems to have not. I have no prejudice towards a new article if notability is established. SwisterTwister talk 19:52, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:13, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Widow Sunday

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails to meet notability standards, only sourced by primary non-notable sources. Hoponpop69 (talk) 01:24, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. --Cameron11598 (Converse) 01:30, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my first AfD nomination on this article. GregJackP Boomer! 02:08, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find anything in the way of real independent coverage in reliable sources, and their short discography shows that none of their releases are on 'important' (by our definition) labels. Fails WP:BAND at present. — sparklism ^hey! 10:35, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' Don't forget to delete their albums too. Shii (tock) 13:06, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 23:04, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Christmas Abbott

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

Fails notability standards. The person is simply a crewmember, nothing more, and has attracted a brief spurt of media mentions because of their gender; however, the statement on which her claim to notability is based - being the 'first female NASCAR crewmember' - is doubly wrong. First, as noted in the contested PROD, in 2003 a team in the Truck Series utilised an all-female pit crew at a race. While it was a publicity stunt (the basis of the contesting), it still happened, regardless of the reasons behind it. Secondly, while I cannot find a WP:RS for it, in a Winston Cup (now Sprint Cup) Series race, NASCAR's top series, at Dover in 1980, Jimmy Ingram's daughter, Lynn Ingram, acted as his crew chief. (non-RS: [35]). The claim is nebulous and, honestly, unverifiable (as records were not kept for who was on crews for many, many years), and the person fails WP:NPEOPLE and WP:NSPORTS. (It's also worth mentioning that the Snowball Derby is not a NASCAR-sanctioned race, making the claim itself WP:CRYSTAL.) The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:19, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. One brief blip of press notice doth not lasting notability make. I'm not sure what the big deal was anyway, considering all the female NASCAR drivers there were years before her lesser media-asserted "accomplishment" (see List of female NASCAR drivers). Clarityfiend (talk) 04:09, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 21:44, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 21:44, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 21:44, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:59, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kemakmuran

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

This appears to be a hoax. Geonames shows places with this name in Indonesia, but none in Kazakhstan. I was reluctant to speedy-delete it, because in this region there are always uncertainties of transliteration, but neither Google Maps, Bing Maps nor the Times Comprehensive Atlas of the World shows any place with a name anything like this, or any settlement of this size, near Lake Alakol. Fails WP:V. Author is an SPA whose only other edits are a sandbox draft about another unlocatable Kazakh town. JohnCD (talk) 14:03, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kazakhstan-related deletion discussions. JohnCD (talk) 14:06, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As much as I like this little article, the notion of a city of 50,000 people, located near a named lake going unreferenced in this day and age is laughable. The lake monster is what tipped me off. I expected more info on the lake article but found none. Google gave nothing. --Auric talk 14:48, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:49, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Almost certainly a hoax. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:53, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete since it is almost certainly a hoax. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:32, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to be a hoax --Cameron11598 (Converse) 01:47, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:16, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Daffodil Institute of Information Technology

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

Subject does not meet WP:ORG. I can find no independent sources that give any significant coverage of the subject. The only reference present is to the organizations own website and the only sources I have been able to find online are self-published, Facebook, various directory listings and Linkedin. The best I could come up with is [36] which is an accreditation partner of the subject and therefore not independent. Pol430 talk to me 20:14, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails notability requirements. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:43, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:39, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:39, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 17:32, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - degree-awarding institution that awards UK accredited degrees. We keep degree-awarding institutions for the very good reason that experience shows that, with enough research, sources can invariably be found that meet WP:ORG. Google is a very poor tool for finding sources on Bangladeshi institutions because, unlike US schools for example, they don't dump everything on the Internet. Indeed, very few have much of an Internet presence at all. We must avoid systemic bias and allow time for local sources to be researched since no evidence has been adduced that this college cannot meet notability requirements. TerriersFan (talk) 03:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per TerriersFan - Ret.Prof (talk) 23:33, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:44, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with TerriersFan that degree-awarding institutions of higher learning can be considered to be notable unless the article is a hoax. Lack of readily available English language sources doesn't make the case for deletion, because there are highly likely to be published sources in Bengali. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:58, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:16, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

G5 (company)

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

Non-notable company that is nowhere near what should be notable on WP. It is created by what is essentially a SPA so it may be spam by stealth. To avoid WP becoming a business directory and giving unfair commercial advantage we MUST take a hard line on articles about commercial organisations. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:44, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It isn't about taking a "hard line", it is about notability. The handful of independent sources are just passing mentions on "fast growing" lists and the like. The "best" of them is a single sentence. The company is not yet notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:04, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that too but because of the company name I had trouble finding specific information. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:06, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We don't delete articles because of difficulty in searching, but because of lack of notability. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:31, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, yep. I know. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 18:47, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 01:10, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 01:10, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Alan, What would make a company notable enough to be included on Wikipedia? The company billed 20M+ last year and has several thousand clients. Would you like more references? More information? I'd like to be friendly and rather than delete the page entirely, try to fix what you'd like to make this page good enough to be included on Wikipedia. Please let me know what you think. -- JamesAllanMillerII 13:53, 22 January 2013

It must meet the notability guidelines. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 18:49, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:17, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maxwell C Hall

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

Based on the article's history, the creator seems to be the subject himself. Because of this, the issue of self-promotion and COI arises. In addition, the article only contains one reference, which is a guest column by the subject himself to the Forest Lake Times. Without this unreliable source, the article could be deleted via a BLPPROD at the very least. A Google search shows no other significant coverage to establish notability. MJ94 (talk) 00:38, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Autobiography of a 19 year old community activist who is no doubt a fine young man but is not yet notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:08, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the article creator has added some sources to the article, including two secondary sources that mention the subject. However, these do not reach the level of notability outlined in WP:BASIC, and a search online is not turning up anything better. VQuakr (talk) 02:04, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maxwell C Hall, too, was nominated for the Forest Lake Human Rights Commission's Bridging our Differences award. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.145.88 (talk) 17:47, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this could/should be kept on Wikipedia. I made several searches on Google, and I found substantial works under the surnames Maxwell Hall and when searched Max Hall Forest Lake. I found enough articles to say the subject should remain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ILoveWiki955 (talk • contribs) 20:46, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 22:19, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 22:19, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable enough to warrant an article; depth of coverage in given sources is insufficient. Couldn't find any other reliable sources, contrary to what the two IP editors claim. If there are other sources, then they should add them. --Drm310 (talk) 22:02, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:18, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cross Enterprise Document Sharing

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

Tagged for notability for 5 years; couldn't establish notability Boleyn (talk) 18:49, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:27, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:27, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable and completely unverified. Peripheral issue related to Integrating the Healthcare Enterprise; not worth a redirect. --MelanieN (talk) 17:02, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:36, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This seems to be a topic that was discussed in medical and health care circles five or six years ago, but never achieved notability. The article on the parent venture, Integrating the Healthcare Enterprise, lacks references and relies on external links. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:17, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Costume Designers Guild Awards. MBisanz ^talk 23:01, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Costume Designers Guild Award for Best Costume Design – Miniseries or TV Film

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

Tagged for notability for 5 years; can't confirm notability Boleyn (talk) 19:08, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:18, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:18, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:18, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:18, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge along with Costume Designers Guild Award for Best Costume Design – Period or Fantasy TV Series and Costume Designers Guild Award for Excellence in Costume Design for a Contemporary Film into Costume Designers Guild - Those other two pages are tidily formatted and laid out, but at present I don't see why we need them to be separate from the main Costume Designers Guild page - which I note DESPERATELY needs referencing - and indeed, from the individual ceremony pages such as Costume Designers Guild Awards 2004 Mabalu (talk) 17:33, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:33, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Costume Designers Guild Awards. The Costume Designers Guild should not contain awards lists at length. Ideally, the individual awards should be fuller and sourced, if possble. For now, merge. — ^Wylie_Coyote 17:34, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:19, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Argo Navis (computer)

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

Doesn't have significant coverage in reliable sources. I did find a review but this doesn't appear to be a professionally published review, nor is 1 review sufficient to prove notability. James086 ^Talk 19:32, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:25, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:25, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:25, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:25, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not appear to be WP:NOTABLE. I couldn't find any reliable sources that mentioned it. The little green pig (talk) 23:49, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:33, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PRODUCT. The maker, Wildcard Innovations, may be notable, but this product doesn't seem to be: I couldn't find any references to it via online reliable sources. -- Trevj (talk) 12:13, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 23:02, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bohol Barangay and Sangguniang Kabataan Elections, 2010

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

Apparently a complete and total ripoff of Philippine barangay and Sangguniang Kabataan elections, 2010. CSD was previously declined. –H T D 17:40, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Adding these two articles as these are related to it:
- List of Elected Sangguniang Kabataan Chairmen of Bohol, 2010
- List of Elected Punong Barangay of Bohol, 2010
–H T D 04:41, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, as it appears to be a duplicate article, if the subjects are the same and the other is the common name, then as is normally done, a redirect is made to the regular article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:39, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not a duplicate article. This should be about the elections in Bohol, but nothing in the article tells us about that; it's just a copy-paste of some of the sections in the main barangay elections article. Their subjects aren't identical; it's more like this one should be the daughter article of the main article. Think of it as the article under AFD is United States presidential election in Louisiana, 2012, while the article that it was ripped off from is United States presidential election, 2012. –H T D 14:09, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 00:10, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 01:40, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Bohol Barangay and Sangguniang Kabataan Elections, 2010 as redundant and unnecessary fork. The lists should be kept. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 03:00, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - worthless fork. Not exactly high-profile. Note that the Sangguniang Kabataan elections are elections for relatively minor officials and usually do not receive much, if any, coverage, in Philippine media. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:25, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:28, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Redundant. Bohol Barangay and Sangguniang Kabataan Elections, 2010 has same contents with the Philippine barangay and Sangguniang Kabataan elections, 2010. List of Elected Sangguniang Kabataan Chairmen of Bohol, 2010 and List of Elected Punong Barangay of Bohol, 2010 articles are unnecessary. Think of having these approved... others articles with this same type of contents will then follow.--AR E N Z O Y 1 6A•t a l k• 10:17, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ‑Scottywong | chatter _ 19:28, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

James Porter (7th Cavalry)

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

Fails WP:GNG, just getting killed by Indians, even in the company of a famous general (although he got famous because he died by Indians), does not make some notable. The Banner talk 13:42, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, this articles passes WP:GNG because The Battle of the Little Bighorn is one of the most famous battles in American history, and because of this Porter is mentioned in various secondary sources, some of which are cited in the article. He was one of the first verified casualties of this battle, which was front page news around the world. Most of the other officers have wiki articles.Swampyank (talk) 18:55, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These sources were not there when I nominated it! But I will take a look at your 22 edits...

The Banner talk 20:27, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To my opinion, FindAGrave is not a reliable source in relation to the biography. The Banner talk 18:48, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, added another source.Swampyank (talk) 04:56, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can find a lot of information in the mention that "(...)Smith, Porter, and Reily were found with their men (...)". This WP:SYNTH and/or WP:OR. The Banner talk 13:59, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's at least as many sources that say his body was never found and this source was not present at the burials. Swampyank (talk) 19:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, the way you have sourced it, makes the article completely unreliable. That erbzine article mentions the name Porter just once, and you use it to source all kinds of things! You are inventing things not backed up by the sources. The Banner talk 04:05, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are exaggerating, but I included quotations to show you that I am not inventing things from these various sources. Swampyank (talk) 23:43, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed everything that was speculation, sourced by a passing mention, or sourced by books that did not mention him at all (an index is always handy). The rest of the sources were out of my reach. The Banner talk 00:33, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not stating explicitly that Porter was the unidentified officer who narrowly escaped before committing suicide, but the witnesses state that there was an officer who came from near Porter's (Company I's) eastern area in the final moments of the battle. My sourcing for describing the last actions of Company I is hardly unreliable, as you stated when you removed them. In fact Donovan's "A Terrible Glory: Custer And The Little Bighorn" is peer reviewed, and the review states that my source is "by far, the clearest, best researched and most accurate account of Custer’s last stand and its aftermath. It is probably the most objective." See: Canadian Army Journal Vol. 12.2 Summer 2009 http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/caj/documents/vol_12/iss_2/CAJ_Vol12.2_24_e.pdf I don't want to engage in a "Last Stand" with you over this minutiae.Swampyank (talk) 18:12, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The whole story about him making his escape is plain guesswork. The accounts are only stories of the type I know somebody who..., third or fourth hand sources. It is completely unclear who made his escape. There is no substantial evidence that it was Porter at all. So why put this guesswork in the article? And about the book: it is just a book review published by an army magazine. It is not peer reviewed by historians. The Banner talk 11:46, 21 January 2013 (UTC) In my opinion, due to the guesswork and other unreliable sources used before, the whole article is unreliable. Every source should be checked to verify if it truly covers what it claims to cover.[reply]

Check every source I've cited. They're all accessible online as well as in print. Despite much speculation that Porter nearly escaped, in this wikipedia article I'm clearly not stating that Porter was the officer who escaped before committing suicide. I state that he was unidentified officer in the eastern area. The Native American witnesses stated that there was an unidentified officer who rode off from near Porter's location (Company I's) in the eastern area in the final moments of the battle, which is relevant to describing the action of Porter's company in the last moments. My sourcing for describing the last actions of Company I is hardly unreliable. Even leaving out Captain Charles King's recording of the Native American accounts, with which you obviously take issue, there is the 2008 Donovan book (Little, Brown, & Co.) which is accepted in the academic community as a trustworthy source.

Not only is Donovan's "A Terrible Glory: Custer And The Little Bighorn" reviewed positively in the Canadian Army Journal (Vol. 12.2 Summer 2009 http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/caj/documents/vol_12/iss_2/CAJ_Vol12.2_24_e.pdf )

but also in other reviews: California Literary Review, Ed Voves, September 25th, 2008 http://calitreview.com/1189,

University of Nebraska, 1-1-2009, Great Plains Quarterly, http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2199&context=greatplainsquarterly and more....

Swampyank (talk) 00:04, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, clearly notable per refs, plus I'm sure that more is out there. BTW, Custer was famous for being one of the youngest generals in the Civil War, prior to the massacre. GregJackP Boomer! 05:14, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 03:38, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Battle of the Little Bighorn. This is one of the most significant events in American/Native history, and one minor officer who is a footnote in a history book should not get their own article. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 10:02, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:28, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Mediran (t • c) 10:27, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless the aim is to add an article for each officer present at the Little Bighorn. Custer's status isn't relevant to Porter, IMO, and he doesn't seem to have done much of note on his own except for getting killed at the Little Bighorn. Intothat darkness 17:32, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Battle of the Little Bighorn is probably the most mythic battle in the the 300 years of the Indian Wars in North America, and one of the last. The relatively small number of officers in the battle have been portrayed in books and films, featured in museums, and discussed in dozens and dozens of books as part of the myth of the West. They seem notable to me! Adding an article for each one who is extensively written about doesn't seem like a bad idea. There were only about a dozen officers killed, and most of them have articles. There were extensive efforts for decades to identify these officers bodies. Swampyank (talk) 00:04, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In your opinion, perhaps. But every article is judged on its own merits, so it does not matter that other officers have an article or not. And beside that, I just do see anything what makes this officer notable. Dying is a famous battle is not enough to make an officer notable. And why are there articles about the players on the Sioux side? Unwanted due to an US-centered POV? The English Wikipedia is for an international audience, not to promote officers who were at the wrong time at the wrong place. Even "Sam Huxley" has a greater claim for fame. The Banner talk 10:05, 24 January 2013 (UTC) I hope that name rings a bell, if not see Battle Cry (Leon Uris novel) [reply]

I know you'd like to remove my work on this article, but I've cited many secondary sources, and Porter was a frequently written about officer in this famous battle albeit on the American side. Porter as a leader (officer) educated at West Point is notable for his participation in this battle, not his connection to Custer alone, and his death was publicized across the world at the time. There's actually sizable book focusing just on Porter, which is in the West Point Library, from which if I get the opportunity I'd like to glean more information about Porter's specific actions in these battles for this article (assuming this article survives your deletion request). If you are interested in the Sioux, there are some great wiki articles on some of the Sioux leaders and documented participants in the battle (besides the obvious, Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse), see: Category:People of the Great Sioux War of 1876. Feel free to create more information on Sioux leaders, I certainly don't have any objection. I'd love to read them, actually, despite the accusations of having me having American POV issues for creating this article. Certainly, many of the actions of both sides were often inhumane. Anyway, I don't think wikipedia has a space issue that I know of. Swampyank (talk) 01:00, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Any officer at the Little Bighorn will generate a large number of citations simply based on their participation (or presence) at that battle. What were Porter's specific contributions to the battle of the Little Bighorn? We don't know. His main military service seems to have been on Reconstruction duty (based on the information provided in the article), which doesn't make him remarkable in any way. Sorry, but given the amount of stuff generated about the Little Bighorn over the years it's perfectly possible to create an impressively-cited article about just about any military member who was there (and even a horse or two for good measure). Does that make them notable on their own? I think the fact that most of the citations in this article come from general works about the battle itself and not from works relating directly to Porter speak tellingly to that point. He does, however, serve to illustrate the relative lack of combat and field experience in the 7th Cavalry prior to the Little Bighorn, which might make this worthy of a merge to the main Little Bighorn article. Intothat darkness 20:18, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage makes sense since there were only eleven officers leading the troops at the battle, so they are discussed in many texts. Porter's specific leadership and strategy during the battle is detailed in several books including: Charles Kuhlman, Ph.D's Legend into history (Old Army Press, 1977) pg. 196, where he describes "the intervention of Lieutenant Porter in bringing up Troop "I" and posting it so that the first platoon stood massed above the entrance to the ravine. This placed it squarely in the rear of the warriors Calhoun and Crittenden were fighting, compelling them to seek cover and putting them out of the fight." Swampyank (talk) 04:37, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They are, IMO, only notable due to their link to Custer. This is a common feature for any man assigned to the 7th Cavalry, officer or enlisted. That makes the battle notable, but not necessarily every person who was involved in the battle. Porter was a company level officer who appears to have accomplished nothing of note during his time with the regiment (most of the linked sources deal with the battle in general or speculation regarding when/where Porter was killed). I'd be persuaded if there was more to Porter's service than this, but that doesn't seem to be the case. Intothat darkness 20:10, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I should say I'd support a merge as proposed above, though. Intothat darkness 20:21, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passed WP:GNG and WP:BIO without issue. The article is also meticulously referenced. And Adoil Descended (talk) 03:35, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is well-referenced and pertains to a subject that is integral to American history.JZeus (talk) 01:35, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As I mentioned above, it's relatively easy to create a heavily-referenced article about any military man who happened to be at the Little Bighorn. If we're talking notability, I think we should look at the nature and not the number of those references. In this article, most of them are to general works about the battle and not specific books or articles about Porter. I'd be more convinced by Keeps if there were a number of sources that dealt specifically with Porter, especially anything covering his time with the regiment prior to LBH. Intothat darkness 21:23, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment supporting keep His biography is notable enough to be featured in other encyclopedias (isn't wikipedia supposed to be the most extensive encyclopedia?), see: Encyclopedia of Frontier Biography: P-Z by Dan L. Thrapp (U of Nebraska Press, 1988), pg. 1163. There is also other research and exclusive writing about Porter, including a 150 page book about him at West Point's Library (http://usmalibrary.usma.edu) "Lieut. Porter and his family of Strong, Franklin County, Maine / a monograph by Andrew J. Johnston." (1992) Swampyank (talk) 23:55, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No, we don't want to be the most extensive encyclopedia, we want to built a reliable encyclopaedia. Not a dictionary of fallen soldiers. The Banner talk 00:49, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Right and that's not what the Encyclopedia of Frontier Biography is either. Take a look at it. Porter's biography is on page 1163 in that encyclopedia, as well as in other books cited in the wiki article, such as The Custer Companion: A Comprehensive Guide to the Life of George Armstrong page 212. Not every soldier at the Little Bighorn has a biography in these books. Why not share information? Swampyank (talk) 03:36, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & Redirect, see WP:NOTPAPER, the real question here is whether the subject has received sufficient significant coverage to be notable per WP:GNG. It appears that the subject has received sufficient significant coverage to pass notability, but the notability appears to be primarily regarding the event of the Battle of Little Bighorn, and thus the subject falls under WP:BLP1E. As such the common outcome is to merge & redirect the content to the event article. If it can be shown that the subject is notable for other things outside of the Battle, then I would see the need for a standalone biography article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:04, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In response: Wikipedia:Notability (people)#People notable for only one event states "On the other hand, if an event is of sufficient importance, even relatively minor participants may require their own articles, for example Howard Brennan, a witness to the JFK assassination." For consistency's sake, I'm assuming that you would want to merge all of the other killed officers into the Little Bighorn article: William W. Cooke, George Edwin Lord, James Madison DeWolf, Thomas Custer, Henry Moore Harrington, Algernon Smith, George Yates, Donald McIntosh, Myles Keogh James Calhoun, John J. Crittenden. Seems like this would make the article unnecessarily unwieldy by eliminating each officer's article and adding all of that background information into battle article (NOTPAPER, which you cite, states "Keeping articles to a reasonable size is important for Wikipedia's accessibility"). Just my opinion on it. Swampyank (talk) 04:50, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP1E also states If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate. Okay, the Battle at Little Bighorn is notable, no doubt about that. But is Porter's role in the battle a significant one? The only thing we know for sure is that he died! He could have been the first one to die, he could have been the last one to die, he could have been fighting bravely, he could have tried to run like a coward. We just don't know, because no one (?) returned from the battlefield on the US-side. It definitely would be fitting to add him to a "List of fallen soldiers at the Battle of Little Bighorn", but not for a stand alone article. Dying doe not make someone notable. The Banner talk 14:53, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Right, as I mentioned above Porter was one of the eleven officers leading the troops at the battle (see their wiki articles above). Porter's specific leadership and strategy during the battle is detailed in several books including: Charles Kuhlman, Ph.D's Legend into history (Old Army Press, 1977) pg. 196, where he describes "the intervention of Lieutenant Porter in bringing up Troop "I" and posting it so that the first platoon stood massed above the entrance to the ravine. This placed it squarely in the rear of the warriors Calhoun and Crittenden were fighting, compelling them to seek cover and putting them out of the fight." He was a West Point graduate, and as an elite officer, special efforts were made to find his body, and his death was assumed by his bloody shirt, and there are many articles discussing him. There's circumstantial evidence about him making a final effort to escape the Little Bighorn. There's more information on him than the sources I've cited in the article, and which I will add once editing is allowed again. Swampyank (talk) 15:36, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the subjects only receive significant coverage for only the one even, Battle of Little Bighorn, then WP:BLP1E applies and a redirect and merger would be the proper course of action. Same would go with all the other officers mentioned, as none are independently notable as outlined in WP:SOLDIER and it is debatable if any played a "Played an important role" in the Battle (as outlined by others in this AfD). Now if they have received significant coverage for other events, then BLP1E no longer applies. Each of the officer's listed deserve an independent review if that is the case. Has 1LT Porter received significant coverage for events other than the Battle of Little Bighorn?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:42, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unaware of any substantial coverage of Porter outside of LBH, honestly. Contending that Porter was an "elite" officer just based on his graduating from West Point isn't accurate by any sense. And if we're honest about it, any discussion of an officer's actions at the Little Bighorn after Martini left the column is going to be speculation. In theory one could take all the officers mentioned by Swampyank above and lump them into an "Officers Killed at the Little Bighorn" article. Intothat darkness 15:08, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That would make a great alternative to outright deletion of all those biography articles. It gives them each their due weight within the aspect of leadership of the United States Army forces during the battle, without giving them undue weight if their content is merged un-summarized into the article about the battle.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:42, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly think that would be my preferred option. It does recognize the importance of the LBH as a whole without skewing the overall importance (in a full career sense) of the officers involved. Intothat darkness 18:25, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am assuming that you are considering the Little Bighorn Battle less significant than the JFK assassination per the analogy in the discussion above/below, which states that sometimes a minor figure can merit their own article if the event is significant enough, and Porter's role was active in the battle, so probably not minor at all. I doubt a merge would be practical or popular with the watchers of the Little Bighorn article, as there are eleven officer's articles to merge. I'm still firmly against it. Swampyank (talk) 00:59, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Depending on your POV of history regading the Plains Wars the Battle of Little Bighorn is either a great tragedy or a something to be celebrated. That being said the Assassination of JFK is the killing of a head of state. This is at the same level as the Assassination of Abraham Lincoln to the Execution of Saddam Hussein or Suicide of Adolf Hitler. As events go, all of these deaths of heads of state received considerable persistent significant coverage. The death of the subject, one of hundreds who died in the battle, in the end does not make a major impact.

As tragic as it maybe, this is why whenever an article about a posthumously awarded Distinguished Service Cross or Silver Star is brought up to AfD it is normally struck down per WP:NOTMEMORIAL and other essays, guidelines, and policies. The death of the subject is significant to someone or many someones, but unfortunately (often) their deaths have little impact outside of that group.

Therefore, a merger into an article about those officers maybe the best hope of some form of content retention. As very often outright deletion is the normal outcome.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 11:42, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't understand this show-down to delete a well-sourced article with dozens of sources over one-hundred and thirty years discussing this leader at the Little Bighorn. Most of the battle participants are not as well-documented as James Porter, who has been written about by dozens of historians. To merge all of the articles about the Cavalry officers and Indian leaders (to be fair) into the Little Bighorn article seems unrealistic and unnecessary to me. What harm are you are concerned about if this much written about officer has an article? In the end, no one is significant, when this planet ends. Let's just stick to the sources and let Porter survive in wikipedia ;) Swampyank (talk) 05:12, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The point remains that no one has demonstrated that Porter did anything of note aside from die at the LBH. As mentioned before I would certainly not be opposed (and would support) an article that focused on officers killed at the Little Bighorn. That would encompass Porter, Calhoun, and others, and would not be a part of the existing Little Bighorn article. Intothat darkness 18:41, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Porter was one of the eleven officers leading a company in one of the most famous and last battles of the American Indian Wars. Historians have written about his role in leading the troops in the battle based upon the evidence left behind, including the physical evidence and Indian testimonies. Before this most famous battle, he served in the South fighting the Ku Klux Klan. Different things were named after him including a battery, a organization branch, and several historical fiction characters in novels. A book was written about him, which is in the U.S. Military libraries. Years after his death, his wife received a special pension from the U.S. Congress because of his special service as an officer at the LB. There are dozens of sources discussing him at the LB. And even if there were fewer sources, how is this harming anything and unhelpful? You really want to merge all the Indian warriors at the LB and the eleven officers into the LB article or a separate article? How is this helpful? It seems unreasonable to me, but you know my feelings on the logic of this already, but after twenty-five days, I have no doubt that this fruitless debate will continue. Swampyank (talk) 03:45, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keogh was the commander of Company I, not Porter. The book you're referring to in the West Point library is a spiral bound piece held nowhere else that appears to be self-published and a work of family history, not a scholarly work. I'm also not sure that you're separating this Porter from a number of other famous Army Porters when you're talking about the legacy. Pensions from Congress for LBH veterans were not unusual, either. While I understand that you have an interest in Porter, he really isn't that notable...no more so than Calhoun, likely less than Keogh, and so on. Intothat darkness 14:40, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, disregarding arguendo the U.S. Congress' special act for Porter's widow, and disregarding this one book about Porter, which I don't even use in the article (because I haven't read it yet), what about the other dozen plus sources cited, which you can even look up online on Google Books? Have you looked them up? Regarding Porter's significance, Thomas Hatch writes: "Lt. Porter actually commanded I Company on the battlefield." And further Dr. Charles Kuhlman, writes about "the intervention of Lieutenant Porter in bringing up Troop "I" and posting it so that the first platoon stood massed above the entrance to the ravine. This placed it squarely in the rear of the warriors Calhoun and Crittenden were fighting, compelling them to seek cover and putting them out of the fight." Both of these published sources describe Porter's leadership in significant action at the Little Bighorn based on physical evidence and Native American testimony analyzed by secondary source authors. Perhaps Calhoun, another officer, also should have an article if you think he's significant? Also you never responded about how this merger or deletion is beneficial? Swampyank (talk) 23:42, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Why is BLP1E being discussed in regards to somebody who died at the Little Bighorn? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:23, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was under the impression, that although the subject obviously is not living, that when a subject is notable (receives significant coverage) for one event, BLP1E still applies, living or dead. I maybe wrong, but that is what I think.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:40, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because dying at Little Bighorn is his only claim of fame. The Banner talk 19:51, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that the stricter scrutiny was required for biographies of living people because of potential slander/libel issues. As I mentioned above, if the event is a very significant historical event and not just a one-time news flash, then as Wikipedia:Notability (people)#People notable for only one event states "if an event is of sufficient importance, even relatively minor participants may require their own articles, for example Howard Brennan, a witness to the JFK assassination." Hard to argue with all of the coverage of Porter, that Brennan is more significant of a historical figure. Swampyank (talk) 00:51, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is that Brennans minor role was of great importance. Porter, excuse the wording, just died! The Banner talk 02:59, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For a dead person WP:BIO1E is probably more appropriate. --Staberinde (talk) 16:41, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - well-documented by significant coverage in many reliable secondary sources means that he is notable. Bearian (talk) 21:02, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:23, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

La Voz newspaper (St. Louis)

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

~~University student newspaper of unascertained notability.~~

~~Newspaper link Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 16:18, 7 January 2013 (UTC)~~ Clearly non-notable publication. There is a dearth of sources. Dubious claims. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 23:18, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The nomination and supplied link doesn't appear to match up with the article in Wikipedia. The article doesn't say anything about being a student newspaper. And why wouldn't the article have Category:Student newspapers published in Missouri if it was a student newspaper? It appears to be a bilingual Spanish-English community newspaper. I'm confused about this nomination. Crtew (talk) 21:37, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I finally found the paper's website on WikiLou [37]. Bad web presence. Tisk, tisk. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 23:18, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That website has a bunch of stuff about magazine subscriptions and modelling. What gives?--Chaser (talk) 17:38, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unless we can find more information matching the article. The link is for a student newspaper at SLU's campus in Spain. I don't think we usually have articles for student-run publications.--Chaser (talk) 17:38, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 23:02, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:22, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources at all have been provided. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:00, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:25, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yan Zhiyu

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

Very poorly written, with lots of peacock words. A quick Web search doesn't seem to bear out the notability. Delete unless notability established. --Nlu (talk) 01:08, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:20, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:20, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:20, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not finding anything in English, and without the Chinese supplied, no way to search for it in Chinese (there could be several ways of writing that out). Sven Manguard Wha? 23:41, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 23:04, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:19, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete being top 300 at an expo is not notable, and no other convincing claim of notability is made. --ELEKHH^T 04:50, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Aberfan. MBisanz ^talk 00:20, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ysgol Rhyd y Grug

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

Non-notable primary school. Does not satisfy WP:GNG Catfish Jim and the soapdish 01:30, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Either plain delete or merge with Quakers Yard, where it is. Primary Scholls are generally NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:16, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The building pictured is there. That hasn't been the site of the school for some years, now. Uncle G (talk) 11:03, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 01:41, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

keep The subject as a school is clearly notable. It is notable for the same reasons any other school is notable. This school over many years has worked to create thinkers which makes it inherently notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.17.102.92 (talk) 06:33, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia does not consider all schools inherently notable. Please review our notability guidelines. This school would be notable if -- and only if -- it were the subject of substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. If you have found such sources, please add them to the article or present them here. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 07:34, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Please read WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES Catfish Jim and the soapdish 09:05, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - It would be difficult for us to determine that for a school in Scotland. This school is likely notable through thousands of people, the standard reason any school is notable. As opposed to going by this form of notability, we should be looking at the fact that if a student does a search and their school comes up on Wikipedia, maybe they will feel more seriously about it. Every little bit helps. This is a moral matter as opposed to anything else. ~~Julser1~~— Preceding unsigned comment added by Julser1 (talk • contribs) 12:24, 13 January 2013‎
    - The "standard reason any school is notable" does not apply here. On Wikipedia, most schools below high school are not notable. As a result, we generally redirect them to their school district's article (if there is one) or the government level they serve (city, town, etc.). Wikipedia does not exist to serve any particular conception of morality. Wikipedia does not exist to encourage anyone to feel any particular way about anything. Wikipedia is about gathering and summarizing verifiable information about notable topics. Anything else simply does not belong here. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:20, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's sad to observe AFD commentary based upon not even reading the article at hand. This is a school in Wales, not Scotland. Getting such a fundamental thing so obviously wrong will serve to completely undermine whatever argument is based upon it. Uncle G (talk) 11:03, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Merthyr Tydfil. Non-notable primary school. Fails WP:GNG. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:08, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd ask "Why not Quakers Yard, as above?" were it not for the fact that the school has been in Aberfan for two and a quarter years now. Julser1 didn't read the article at hand to see that this is actually Wales, not Scotland. But others haven't read the only externally linked WWW page in the entire article to see that the article, with its pretty picture and two sentences of content, is basically incorrect on almost every point except the headmaster's name. Even the picture is wrong. This isn't the school building, nor the address of the school. And Ynysowen is not in Aberfan. Uncle G (talk) 11:03, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:20, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 18:17, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kiniro Mosaic

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

Article about a manga, which is being adapted into an anime. References are primary or tertiary. No indication in the article or on Google of how this book meets the standards for notability of WP:NBOOK or the standards for presumption of WP:GNG. BenTels (talk) 15:00, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:26, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:26, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep – I wouldn't be so hasty to delete—being turned into an anime means that it could likely be notable. Also, there is a likelihood that there are far more Japanese sources than English ones—reliable sources need not be in English, as far as I know. Bensci54 (talk) 23:18, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and source the article more - While searching Japanese sources I found (An official youtube page), and better (an official Anime site) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:31, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - being adapted into an anime is usually considered to be a claim to notability, since they will eventually gain coverage anyway. Also, not all manga are adapted so it's still significant. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:29, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:19, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand - while additional sources (and additional content) are needed desperatly, this seems to clear the notability bar. The nominator is also reminded that offline sources are acceptable; a mere negative on Google does not equate a lack of notability, and also the sources must only exist, not be in the article, to pass N. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:51, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Soft delete - undeletion can be requested at WP:REFUND. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 11:08, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrence Frankopan

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

I can't work out what the notability of this person is, as most of this article and references are about his family not him. NtheP (talk) 12:34, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only the first paragraph is about him, and only one claim is sourced, and neither of the claims is of a particular notability. 216.93.234.239 (talk) 23:26, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:23, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. While some of his relations do seem notable, he certainly does not inherit notability from them - even if most of the current article gives undue attention to these relationships. However, his work as a sports agent (especially tennis) just might do so - while most of the GNews hits are just him acting as spokesperson for one of his clients, some such as this, even if they are not specifically about him, do seem to be treating him as an industry expert in his own right rather than on behalf of his clients or employers. While I am not seeing enough for a keep vote, there may be sources I am missing. PWilkinson (talk) 10:22, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 23:05, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:18, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Victorian Flatbush. MBisanz ^talk 22:59, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Beverly Square East, Brooklyn

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

Article tagged as of doubtful notability and unreferenced for 5 years Boleyn (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but create Victorian Flatbush for context. (I may do that.) A bit of digging confirmed that both this and Beverly Square West, Brooklyn, both created by the same editor and with virtually identical wording, should be at the "Beverley" spelling, as used in their text. There is coverage in the New York Times of the group of neighborhoods, which for added complexity are now usually grouped under Ditmas Park. Some of them have better articles, such as Fiske Terrace; here's a New York Times article clearly explaining it all, with specific coverage of Beverley Square East (and West), here's the Epoch Times, here's more New York Times coverage. Yngvadottir (talk) 05:27, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into either Ditmas Park or Victorian Flatbush. This one development isn't notable escept as a part of a larger set of Flatbush developments that now make up the neighborhood of Ditmas Park. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fitnr (talk • contribs) 15:47, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Someone moved it to Beverley Square East, Brooklyn and I have now moved the other article to Beverley Square West, Brooklyn to match. I've created Victorian Flatbush and started improving this article with more information and sources; I will similarly expand and reference Beverley Square West. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:11, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:18, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 22:58, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FreddeGredde

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

Subject appears to fail notability guidelines, he is a musician that has gained some mild success on YouTube. He has released one album that hasn't received any commercial success. The entire article has one source, which is just a tracklist for the album. NYSMy talk page 23:31, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, as seen here, the creator of the article appears to have some personal connection with the subject. (COI) NYSMy talk page 23:35, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now - He has earned quite a reputation but it seems he is best known for only his YouTube work at this time. A Google News search provided results here (Argentine news article talking about his cover song), here (British news article for the same video), here and here (News entries for the video game and theme song medleys). A different search provided a music review for his album here and another different search provided this blog. I watched the theme song medley and will say he is very talented and I'm sure he will have a successful career but there isn't much for an article now. I'm voting delete with no prejudice for a future article or userfying the article. SwisterTwister talk 04:33, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — sparklism ^hey! 13:56, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:42, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

userfy with a recommended delay of, say, six months before resubmission. (Give FG time to accumulate a few more sources). I wonder if WP doesn't need a bit of a rethink on YouTube notability, what with the general move to electronic media? David_FLXD (Talk) 05:31, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 23:08, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:17, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since literally anyone can post to YouTube for any reason they feel, lets leave it out of the notability criteria please. Яεñ99 (talk) 13:13, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:53, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The White Ravens

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/The White Ravens

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

Created by WP:SPA, not edited in over 2 years, no references at all. MarioNovi (talk) 09:23, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:46, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now - First of all, the article not being edited for over two years is not a reasonable case nor is "no references at all" as the external links support some of the article's content. Additionally, as per Wikipedia:BEFORE, you should search for potential sources before nominating, good places are Google News and Google News archives and often Google Books (this one depends on the subject). However, I have done it myself and, unfortunately, I haven't found much to help this article. Google News found results here (one result, second to last result from the bottom), here (two brief paragraphs) and here (two results, second from the top and fourth from the bottom). I also found a book here that suggests a band with the name "The White Ravens" also existed in 1930s Germany. It seems they have gained attention as a local band but nothing significant and their website shows the most recent concert was in September 2012 at a local club so they must not be very active. I recognize the magazine articles and award but there really isn't much for a good article at this time and the Blogspot review is unacceptable for Wikipedia. Although they have played with other musicians, they are obviously an indie duo band. I'm voting delete with no prejudice for a future notable article. SwisterTwister talk 00:39, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 23:09, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:16, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was WP:WITHDRAWN. (non-admin closure) (non-admin closure) Inks.LWC (talk) 08:58, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speakeasy Theaters

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

Tagged for notability for over 5 years; couldn't prove notability Boleyn (talk) 11:43, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only offered coverage relates to news mention of the business failure rather than demonstration of notability during its life. AllyD (talk) 12:00, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, i have added some references from local, reliable sources (mercury news, chronicle, eb express) showing the theaters have gotten some coverage, esp. recently with its reopening. I still have serious issues with the name (if the chain is truly gone, maybe the article should be called parkway theater, as that was the main theatre in the chain of 2), and i have problems with the content and timeline (i have not added my new refs perfectly (and some not fleshed out with full names), thus it reads oddly). still, i think we have enough for a keep.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:25, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with Mercurywoodrose. These were high-profile theaters in historic locations. According to one reference, the Parkway was the first speakeasy-style movie theater in California. There is a lot of coverage which we have only begun to add to the article. --MelanieN (talk) 23:25, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:16, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn due to improvements. Thanks for your hard work, Boleyn (talk) 13:01, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was RESULT: Keep (non-admin closure). Notability demonstrated here- thanks for your contributions. Boleyn (talk) 09:38, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Taro Okamoto Award

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

tagged for notability for over 5 years; couldn't establish notability. Boleyn (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:15, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:15, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is not well-written and actually confusing. It seems that this is an annual exhibition held at the Taro Okamoto Museum of Art, for which works are submitted in a general call. Getting selected for the exhibition is itself an honor and awards are given to the best works. The top prize is the Taro Award, but there are other awards as well. The article currently does not explain how the award works and it is unclear if the names listed here are only recipients of the Taro Award, or whether some won other awards. Putting those problems aside, it seems there is sufficient notability to warrant a page if one considers the exhibition and the awards together. There are quite a number of significant sources that talk about the exhibition and award: [38], [39], [40], [41], etc. Since the exhibition/award has seemed to mostly function as encouragement for young artists, art colleges often announce if their students won an award: [42], [43], etc. Editions of major papers like the Yomiuri Shinbun have also reported on local boys winning an award: [44]. Finally, I found quite a few artists making the point of including the award in their abbreviated profiles, such as here, which can attest to how important it is viewed. Personally, I think the article should be rewritten or even re-titled to focus on the exhibition, with the various awards mentioned in a sub-section. Michitaro (talk) 02:04, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It appears to be prestigious in Japan, which itself should be a claim to notability. Plus, it has received coverage in reliable sources. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:32, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:15, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 22:58, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Nazim

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

Non-notable. WP:ENT states that to become notable, one actor must have roles in multiple notable television shows, but here it's stated that the actor has only one role: Saath Nibhaana Saathiya. As per WP:TOOSOON this article must be deleted. NDTV is the only source I found in Google News, so this article becomes eligible for deletion under two notability guidelines:-WP:GNG and WP:ENT. Forgot to put name 17:07, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Added multiple citations. WP:GNG is now invalid.

As for notablity, Any actor may be notable even with a limited number of portrayals(See list of actors for Student_of_the_Year_(film)): In this case, he has got "a large cult following" which can be proven. 12k article views in 90 days shows that he indeed has quite a following. (Page views for the newly created Ahem Modi must also be monitored in the coming few days) TheOriginalSoni (talk) 14:19, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

12000 in 90 days is very small cult following. According to that page view statistics tool, Alia Bhatt has recorded 390687 page views in the last 30 days. Alia Bhatt has only one role in film: Student of the Year, but has a very large cult following. Comparing to this, Mohammad Nazim's cult following appears to be very small. Forgot to put name 14:57, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Consider the page sizes of the two pages. Alia Bhatt has a decent sized page, while the subject has hardly a few coherent lines (most of which have also been removed now - Thank you). One can then hardly expect the page views to boost (Since they are directly connected to the position where Google displays the Wikipedia link when searched). A quick google search count on both Ahem Modi (the more household name for the actor) and Mohammad Nazim would make things clearer (I do not know how to - Can anyone do that?). And lastly, Alia Bhatt is a movie actress, which gave a natural boost to her page views around the time of the release of the movie (55k views on 21 October; 14k yesterday). TV actors do not get that kind of heavy interest - In their case it's more of a sustained smaller long term interest with minor spikes. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 15:18, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, you are right. However, atleast some people must land on the subject. I searched for Mohammad Nazim in Google and found that the Wikipedia link came in 2nd position. So that is not much difference between Alia Bhatt and the subject. As you are saying that "TV actors do not get that kind of heavy interest", I reviewed another similar page - Giaa Manek and I found that it recorded around 32k views in last 30 days. Another similar article - Sriti Jha has recorded 17k page views in last 30 days. The two actors mentioned above are not of heavy interest. 17k in 30 days and 12k in 90 days seems to be very low. Forgot to put name 15:48, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's more of a case of the name with which the actor is famous. Smriti Irani has not played the role of Tulsi for 5 years now, and yet she is still remembered by almost everyone I know as "Tulsi", and not Smriti. In the West, Sheldon Cooper might be remembered as Jim Parsons too, but not in India. A comparison for the Google count for Gopi Modi (Giaa Manek) or Anandi (Avika Gor) or Ahem (the subject) is more appropriate when you compare with a movie actress like Alia Bhatt.

As for the heavy interest, I disagree on Gia (I can't say about the latter as I am not aware) - She has quite a heavy interest; But just not enough when it comes to a Wikipedia page. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 15:57, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How you say that Gia is of heavy interest? I searched Google just now; no significant difference was found between Gopi Modi, Aham Modi and Anandi Jagdish Singh - The name with which the actor/actresses are famous. But when it comes to Wikipedia page, there is significant difference between actor/actresses. As per Alexa Internet, Wikipedia is the 6th most visited site. So there mustn't be much difference. I would appreciate an unbiased, experienced editor to make the judgement. Forgot to put name 16:13, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am from India, and so have a working knowledge of who these people are. My point there was that when you compare with a movie actress like Bhatt, you compare their more common role names, not their real names. The real names get way less hits than the common names.

When it comes to Indian actors and actresses, especially TV actors and actresses, Wikipedia pages usually contain a lot less than what is given in other places. Thus most of the traffic for stubs and lower level pages go to other sites and not Wikipedia. So for smaller articles, you find the traffic being not as representative of the popularity levels as a Google count. (Alia, being recent news, would be an exception to this rule-of-thumb). On the other hand, the longer articles are relatively well-developed, and so for Amitabh Bachchan or Vidya Balan, you find the traffic to be high and quite similar to the Google count. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 18:40, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 22:44, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 22:44, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 22:44, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An experienced, unbiased editor will be able to clarify this case. Not able to determine how the subject is not recording enough page views. I searched Google with keywords "Aham Modi saath nibhaana saathiya" and didn't find the article. Forgot to put name 05:29, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:14, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article lists five sources for a short lead sentence. The article should be expanded upon using those, but it still doesn't appear notable to stay. — ^Wylie_Coyote 17:11, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article needs improvement, not deletion. The sources verify that the subject is notable, and the article makes a valid claim for notablity - Being the lead actor in one of the largest television shows in the second most populous country of the world. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 05:56, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CAWylie makes a point — It still doesn't appear notable to stay. Non-notable under WP:ENT. — Forgot to put name (talk) 08:17, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let's look at WP:ENT and only leave in what matters regarding the subject:

Entertainers

Actors ~~, voice actors, comedians, opinion makers, models, and celebrities~~:

1. ~~Has had significant roles in~~ multiple ~~notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other~~ productions.

2. ~~Has a~~ large fan base or ~~a significant "cult"~~ following.

3. Has made ~~unique, prolific or innovative~~ contributions to ~~a field of~~ entertainment.

Nope, nope, and nope! Delete! — ^Wylie_Coyote 13:55, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the fact that multiple productions does not apply in this case.

I disagree.

Pardon me for the language, but Bullshit. He has as much of a contribution to entertainment as Jim Parsons. (Not the best of examples, but thats the one I could find) And yet we have a page on Parsons. I suggest that if you do not know about Indian media, you do not comment on it. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 14:48, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is never a good argument. But since you wish to be prejudicial between countries, Jim Parsons has won awards, Mohammad Nazim has not, or they are not listed in the article, which is the very reason for notability. And since you have resorted to not being civil, my part in this discussion is over... my vote proven. — ^Wylie_Coyote 15:22, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My argument is not WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I wished to show the equivalence between Parsons and Nazim.

I think I said "Pardon me for the language". I knew it wasnt the most friendly word, but it certainly was the most apt. I just spoke my mind here. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 16:12, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Single television show does not make up to notability of an actor. Fails WP:ENT.--GDibyendu (talk) 17:02, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Per consensus below, it does not appear that the subject of the article is notable. m.o.p 09:25, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oren Laurent

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

Founder of a four-year-old binary options enterprise called Banc de Binary. Not independently notable of that organization. The slight notice of this person thus far received from independent, reliable sources falls well short of the substantial coverage mandated by WP:GNG. Request deletion or redirect to Banc de Binary. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 23:03, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -non-notable businessperson even more obscure than his company. Note that Banc de Binary is also the subject of an AfD discussion now.--Orange Mike | Talk 23:36, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
if the organization survives its AfD, redirect there . If it doesnt, delete no significant coverage outside of company. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:54, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. —Ed!^(talk) 16:41, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable person involved with a company of doubtful notability. Roger (talk) 10:35, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree Oren Laurent is one of the most important people in the finance world in UK. he won the world finance 100 awards. i added more references. Reuvengrish (talk) 17:29, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Comment All you've added is a deprecated External link, which I reverted. According to Banc de Binary it is the company, not Mr Laurent, that received the award you mentioned. BTW the award is from a non-notable publication. Roger (talk) 17:40, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I actually improved this article about a week ago so I was surprised to see it back to its original form. There were others who added some information and I also came back to add additional links. The reason I believe he is notable is due to the additional references that I added before it was recommended for deletion. There is information about this subject on Forex News Now [45], World Finance [46], MSN.com Arabia [47], The Financial Times [48], The Times UK [49], and the Houston Chronicle. The other references may be less notable but I believe the ones above are good. He is known in his field as one of the leading authorities, separate from Banc de Binary. Also, if World Finance is a non-notable publication, then it should probably be recommended for deletion as well, although there is quite a bit of press out there about it as well. Bottom line, the article in the shape it was in looked horrible and should have been deleted. However, the additional references above I believe show notability. I have added back the edits to the article, including the negative information from the Better Business Bureau. Would just like to see the article have a chance with the additions that were made. I could see the article even being shortened a little by removing the Banc de Binary information and putting it into that article if it survives its recommendation for deletion, and keeping it with Mr. Laurent if it does not. --WEP2013 (talk) 01:54, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let's look at the citations you mention:

forexnewsnow.com: non-reliable source provides anonymous interview + link to company brochure
World Finance: 8-year-old enterprise, it's own article recently PROD'd by another editor, I see. Nor is your citation to one of its bylined articles. Instead, this uncredited bit is so shamelessly promotional, I can only assume it is some form of advertorial: "Laurent instinctively knew that people would be Banc De Binary’s greatest asset." Give me a break.
MSN.com Arabia: A short piece on the price of gold. Laurent gets some fairly trivial mention.
FT.com: Article about Intrade, a different company, although there are three sentences quoting Laurent about Banc de Binary.
Times: A brief piece about undervalued shares, based on a study put out by Banc de Binary.
Houston Chronicle: A press release published by PRWeb, posted on the paper's website.

These citations are variously unreliable, non-independent, or too insubstantial to indicate notability. Only the ones from FT and the Times are of any real use, and if Laurent were actually a notable expert, I would expect to be able to find dozens of such cites from RS's. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 06:27, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again for your comments. I only placed in the citations that I felt were reliable and independent. Again, I see your reasons why you do not believe that they are, but I believe it will be decided one way or another at the end of this deletion discussion.--WEP2013 (talk) 15:49, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. I suspect that this article has been created to try to make Banc de Binary look legitimate. Why would an American, with an American wife, and running a business with mostly American customers, choose to live in Cyprus? (See Asil Nadir for my conjectured answer.) Maproom (talk) 10:30, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In response to the user above: It's well known among binary traders (such as myself) that Oren Laurent is based in Cyprus as part of the company's efforts to become regulated in Europe, beginning with CySEC, the Cypriot Securities and Exchange Commission. If the SEC in the US regulated binary options (which will happen eventually), I'm sure he would be based there. The nasty conjecture from the user above is not warranted or welcome. Binary options is a fast-growing market, and Oren Laurent's media profile essentially makes him the face of the industry. Simply because you as an individual don't know the industry, doesn't make him non-notable. If that were the case, every ice hockey player could be deleted as non-notable, based on my knowledge of it. Inert234 (talk) 12:13, 16 January 2013 (UTC)— Inert234 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment - It's hardly non-notable that Oren Laurent and Banc De Binary are pioneers in the private binary options market. The industry is just three or four years old, and these two entities are instrumental in its development. The fact that Banc De Binary is now licensed by CySEC and is the first binary options trading firm in the world to to be licensed by a regulatory body makes these entries notable and they should not be deleted. If Wikipedia ends up without an entry for the first licensed binary options company in the world AND its founders, it will be missing important information! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Recordwriter (talk • contribs) 09:30, 17 January 2013 (UTC) — Recordwriter (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Banc de Binary, licensed all of three weeks ago, is not even the first such firm licensed in Cyprus, let alone the world. The American Stock Exchange, regulated by the SEC, has been trading them since 2008. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 06:48, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This should be a topic for the Banc de Binary article. I agree that there are others licensed. The wording that I chose for that article was not the best. The actual wording should be "the first stand alone binary option broker to be licensed. I will make that change shortly based on this [50] and other references. --WEP2013 (talk) 15:45, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:13, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Additional References - I found additional references about Mr. Laurent. They are from the Independent,[51] the Telegraph,[52] and Investment Week.[53] It appears that the articles are all related to the same information and quote Mr. Laurent; however, they are three different stories published in 3 notable publications. --WEP2013 (talk) 15:58, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- they are not "about him"- they contain quotes "by him" and the way you have attempted to incorporate them into the lead is gross misuse and misrepresentation of primary source materials. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:50, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have to tip my hat to you for your comment "the way you have attempted to incorporate them into the lead is gross misuse and misrepresentation of primary source materials." The statement "He is considered a leading authority on binary options and is often consulted by major publications and television networks to speak on the topic" is not contained in the source and I see how it is misleading. I did not intend to misuse the sources, but after looking closer at the sentence and the sources, I see that you are correct and will change it to read "He has appeared in publications and television networks speaking on the topic of finance and binary options." Although he is stated as a leading authority, I believe this new sentence is a little more neutral. Again, sorry to misuse and did not intend it. --WEP2013 (talk) 15:00, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Additional References - I have also found additional references that contain interviews that Mr. Laurent has given.[54], [55], [56]. --WEP2013 (talk) 15:15, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So, what have we established? Oren Laurent founded the first standalone binary options brokerage to be licensed by an EU regulatory authority under financial instrument trading rules, and has been widely quoted in various media as an expert in the field. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Recordwriter (talk • contribs) 14:04, 25 January 2013 (UTC) If you look at the big picture, the article is about an individual who is a key figure in the development of the private binary options market. Yes, they have been legal to trade on some exchanges and as a minor part of already-existing Forex company portfolios, but it is Oren Laurent who has founded the first formally-licensed standalone binary options firm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Recordwriter (talk • contribs) 09:21, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. Being "widely quoted" in press releases and advertorial placements has no bearing here--this is an encyclopedia, not a marketing outlet. It has already been admitted by one of your fellow SPAs that this not even the first licensed firm in Cyprus. And this licensing took place this month. Having just a faint few trivial mentions in reliable sources does not satisfy WP:GNG. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 00:10, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

European CEO Cover - He is featured in the Spring 2013 edition of European CEO. You can see the cover here (http://www.europeanceo.com/magazine/) or you can read the entire article here (http://www.europeanceo.com/business-and-management/2013/01/the-next-generation-of-financier/). I will add this to the discussion at Banc de Binary as well. I did not want to put the citation into the article as of yet so that anyone wishing can comment first. I see that there are a lot of references in the article marked as unreliable and believe that this one could replace those altogether.--WEP2013 (talk) 16:03, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - while there are reliable sources, they do not indicate that this individual is notable. Tiggerjay (talk) 16:55, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The quality of this debate was very high, with almost all of the comments being based in the deletion policy. A few editors made comments that didn't address the sources available, and I have discounted those. The remaining comments were split between recommending keeping the article because of the coverage in multiple sources, and between recommending deletion because of a perceived lack of depth in that coverage. I can't see any reason to discount any of these opinions, and so given there were almost twice as many "keep" comments as "deletes" I am closing this discussion as a weak consensus to keep. In my decision I have also taken into account the fact that according to the subject more sources will likely be appearing in the near future. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 13:39, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Stierch

AfDs for this article:

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

I really like Sarah and what she does; but didn't we agree long ago that being well-known as a Wikipedian is not genuinely notable, unless the subject passes WP:BIO with entirely non-Wikimedia sources. Sorry, Sarah and Valerie: I feel really bad to have to raise this question. Orange Mike | Talk 00:05, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree on the rule about "being well-known as a Wikipedian" being insufficient for notability. I'm not clear on how your first sentence applies to this article, though, since no part of the article is about being "well-known as a Wikipedian." The arguments for notability of the subject are based on specific paid positions which happen to be related to Wikipedia, such as first Wikipedian-in-residence at the Smithsonian. The first of anything at the Smithsonian seems notable to me, and to many reliable third-party sources judging by the press reaction. Stierch's work on the gender gap is also judged notable by many reliable third-party sources. Could you be specific about which elements of the article fall under the exception of "well-known Wikipedian?" Catavar (talk) 00:31, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are several non-Wikimedia sources available about Stierch. Perhaps the best is the article in The Independent, which has six paragraphs about Stierch, including biographical details. There is also coverage in the Archives of American Art, Slate, the Smithsonian and TechRepublic. Disclosure: I have met Sarah and like her. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:49, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sarah has multiple independent works covering her, including the Smithsonian Magazine, TechRepublic, and other ones. She may not have saved the world or created world peace (yet), but that does not mean that she isn't notable. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:53, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. For notability to be established on the project, we require that the individual be a subject of multiple published secondary sources that are intellectual independent of each other and the subject. I would also note that the depth of the coverage received by the subject is not substantial. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 03:15, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and per Nearly Headless Nick. She's a super person, but isn't really independently notable, per WP:NN - Alison ^❤ 03:52, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Kevin Rutherford. Criteria for WP:CREATIVE also apply--when people want to probe Wikipedia's gender gap, Sarah is the person they seek and cite. Disclosure: I also know and like Sarah as well as Orange Mike, but clearly Sarah is notable for advancing the idea that Wikipedia needs to be more inclusive of women as editors and subjects of articles. --Jgmikulay (talk) 04:17, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Nick. Sarah 04:29, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm sure Sarah will be notable some day, but today is not that day. For people who are active in the Wikipedia/Wikimedia universe we should be extra strict to prevent the idea that we promote "our own". Multichill (talk) 08:52, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's enough reliable sources on her (mentioned in Independent and Slate, looking at article's sources, for example), even discounting WMF blogs and such (but I think they are reliable, too). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:18, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Or else delete all the articles (male as well as female) at Category:Wikimedia_Foundation that have fewer (or even far fewer) refs. CarolMooreDC 12:48, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Let's remember not to use an "other stuff exists" argument (e.g. the other Wikipedia Foundation category members) and focus on the notability of of the subject alone. I like this measure of notability. I'll come back and !vote after I take a look at the quantity and more importantly quality of the sources used. I suspect with Ms. Stierch, it's not a case of utter non-notability, but a case of WP:TOOSOON. COI statement: I like Sarah, I love what she's doing with the gender gap (I'm female) and she's even given me a virtual beer or two. Valfontis (talk) 14:32, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF is just an essay and therefore we should feel free to use it in situations where comparisons very clearly are highly relevant.

Moreover, didn't the nominator write: didn't we agree long ago that being well-known as a Wikipedian is not genuinely notable, unless the subject passes WP:BIO with entirely non-Wikimedia sources Under that theory even more Wikipedia Foundation category members' articles should be Afd'd. (Also: to quote below "Declaration: I've met, worked and socialised with Sarah" however my interest is more consistency than anything personal regarding Sarah, plus I'm an anti-deletionist in general.) CarolMooreDC 17:23, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree with you on some levels, but I haven't found another Wikimedia Foundation category bio that justifies deletion (though I haven't checked them all); they tend to establish notability much better than this one. If you can give examples, then we can argue WP:OTHERSTUFF, but for now let's focus on this one. —Rutebega (talk) 20:07, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Generally agreeing delete here. The coverage of her isn't really extensive enough to justify an article. I agree about the other WMF-related people articles as well, FWIW, but that isn't the point of this discussion... The Land (talk) 17:26, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm flattered anyone would think of writing an article about me. On the flipside, I also was told I passed GNG a while ago ;) So, if anyone wants a list of reliable press coverage I have been, well, maintaining since the early 2000's let me know. I also think it's weird - despite some of the poor sources used, no one has worked to improve the article, and frankly anything categorized as being from non-Wikimedia, non-Smithsonian is reliable. I mean shit, I've been interviewed on Freakonomics, the ABC News (Australia), and the CBC. (The first which will be released in a couple of weeks) Anyway, I don't see how I'm any different than Andrew Lih aside from him publishing a book. SarahStierch (talk) 17:55, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If you have a list of interviews and other coverage, you might post it (or highlights; don't want to overload the servers ;-) ) to the article's talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:34, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Done At least I can say I went down fighting. Anyone who knows me know I never stop :) SarahStierch (talk) 19:34, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:38, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no offense meant to Sarah, who is a lovely person that I wish I could have spoken to at Wikimania last year, but I don't really see what makes her notable. I can't honestly work out what makes her pass GNG - maybe those sources will help, though, so I'll await those. And indeed an article on Liam Wyatt, who if anything is more deserving of an article than Sarah is. Again, no offence meant, I'm sure she's a lovely and hardworking person. — foxj 18:41, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Abundant reliable sources. Declaration: I've met, worked and socialised with Sarah. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:38, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep'. Passes GNG via independent coverage, and (if it matters) it's coverage of publicly visible work, not "inside" Wikipedia stuff. --Arxiloxos (talk)
Keep - we shouldn't have an article on someone just because they have a high profile within Wikimedia, but equally we shouldn't enforce a higher standard for notability because the subject happens to be a Wikimedian. The combination of sources passess WP:GNG/WP:BIO. KTC (talk) 20:13, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As is, the article includes a lot about Sarah's role within WMF, and I don't think that establishes much notability. However, I sense (partly from her comment above) that she has more notability than has been referenced in the article, so the best thing to do is improve instead of delete. —Rutebega (talk) 20:13, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I think she squeaks by on coverage, though the article isn't particularly strong (just look at the sentence I just removed--and more work needs to be done). Let's not add a list of media appearances to the article, please. I found another mention of her report here, suggesting that she is well-known enough to pass the bar. Disclosure, in line with others here: Sarah hasn't met me yet, but I'm a lovely person. Drmies (talk) 20:21, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - couldn't see where she's mentioned here[57], ref 7 isn't from the New York Times, but a far less reliable blog site. I'm confused as to how a Smithsonian source is a reliable one when she's directly connected. That said, the Independent article has a decent amount of coverage, as does the Tech Republic's interview. I'd go Weak Keep based on those two sources and the accumulation of the others. Lukeno94 (talk) 20:46, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You have good points that deserve explanation. I included the Smithsonian source only to establish a minor point of fact: it stated outright that Stierch was the first Wikipedian-in-residence at the entire Smithsonian. All third-party sources (most already included in the article) I could find only stated that she was the first at each of the two sub-units. I figured that the Smithsonian reference could be used for a minor factual point like that, but if it is inappropriate, it can be deleted without affecting notability since the appointments are covered by non-Smithsonian sources. The NY Times reference was intended to document the notability of the gender gap, not Stierch's personal involvement in it. I'd appreciate any improvements on the article in any form! Catavar (talk) 03:37, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 22:07, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 22:07, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 22:07, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 22:07, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm fairly allergic to self-promotion and navel-gazing, but we do a disservice to notable Wikipedians if we do not apply the same notability standards as we would in any other case. In this case, the subject meets WP:BIO through in depth coverage in a variety of sources. [58][59][60][61] Article expanders: please don't forget to mention that DJ Sarah Vain brought Fugazi to Indianapolis [62] and spun for the Naptown Roller Girls [63]. Also, if somebody would please start an article for Liam Wyatt. Disclosure: I have received a barnstar from Sarah. Gobōnobō ⁺ ^c 23:59, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
comment - I'd like to say how delighted I am in the quality of the discussion here, on the sensitive topic of one of our own (albeit one of our own who seems to have no enemies in the project, as opposed to some of us more prickly types who have gotten on many folks' nerves and/or stepped on their toes). --Orange Mike | Talk 17:17, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly, and surprisingly, reliable. She has a variety multiple owned databases, and yet why all of a sudden delete if there is a grudge on her, and yet all the detailed references are shown as a way of inclusion of information to nobility, and yet already to deletion? Why not just delete articles Jacob Severin, or Joey Chestnut, or Takeru Kobayashi, from an eating contest due to the so much controversy called "notability". ""It's all there, in black and white, clear as crystal!" as a former wiseman once said. It has so far been efficient among WP:GNG/WP:BIO, WP:CITE, and WP:RS.--GoShow (............................) 19:02, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Thanks to her and Liam, the whole "Wikipedian in Residence" thing has really taken off. I noticed there is no "Wikipedian in Residence" article, which should probably be written (and that will be another can of beans), but as the first in the US, she is notable. This phenomenon is gaining ground not just with GLAM's, but also for organizations such as WHO and others whose mission is to spread knowledge worldwide. Wikipedia is very efficient at this. An article on Sarah is a fairly innocent and straightforward example of someone doing this collaboratively with a recognized institution in the US (I am referring here to her work for the Smithsonian). Jane (talk) 10:39, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unfortunately I cannot see anything in this article that proves notability. Not as DJane (1 of 30 under 30 in the Pittsburgh area), not as museum curator. Work within Wikipedia should not be considered as creating notability for an article. No offense meant and all the work she does should be honored ... but not with an article here. --Gereon K. (talk) 18:29, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Good Job as Residence with a lot of public outreach. I don't like a lot of her Community Fellow work - but she does someting. And also here - with a lot of outreach. And I would not have a cause to argue with her in some points, the people outside and inside the Wikimedia projects would hear on what she says. So she's more important than much people here would really belive. And our Job is to collect this knowledge. Article is well written, NPV seems to be OK. So we have to keep the article. Marcus Cyron (talk) 18:45, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Subject has multiple sources covering her in detail, being a Wikipedian and an admin is not a reason for deletion (otherwise please AFD Jimbo Wales). Disclosure: I've worked with Sarah on Signpost articles twice and I voted in her RFA (she may have voted in mine, I forget) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:37, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Has been covered by WP:RS before, and also passes WP:GNG. Zappa O Mati 10:58, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm flattered by all the people mentioning my name as a sort of comparison/precedent, but I should note by way of bringing some historical context that a biography article about me was indeed created in November 2010 at Liam Wyatt but then relatively quickly deleted (with my agreement) as there were only sources that referenced me in passing rather than being, not about me per se. I'm not going to vote on this topic one way or another since I'm so inextricably linked to the idea of bios of "our own" :-) Witty lama 11:10, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails GNG, sorry to say. I'm not seeing multiple, substantial, independently-published sources. My crystal ball says there probably will be, eventually, so no prejudice against recreation when such sources exist. Carrite (talk) 07:15, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was transwiki to Wiktionary. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 22:05, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mechaieh

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary JetBlast (talk) 14:40, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Transwiki: I can't see this entry growing to anything beyond this, and perhaps its etymology. Note that the spelling chosen by the article creator is odd; mechaye or mechayeh or mekhaye would be more regular spellings. הסרפד (call me “Hasirpad”) (formerly R——bo) 16:13, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed !vote: Wiktionary would be a good home for this entry. It and its etymology have been covered in depth (but not beyond a dictionary definition): [64]. הסרפד (call me “Hasirpad”) (formerly R——bo) 02:34, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. הסרפד (call me “Hasirpad”) (formerly R——bo) 02:35, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 00:16, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:05, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki: Agree with nom about WP:NOTDIC. Move to Wiktionary. --Mike Agricola (talk) 14:55, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki: Agree with nom, move to Wikionary. Tiggerjay (talk) 16:51, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki per WP:SNOW. Bearian (talk) 20:59, 29 January 2013 (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 redirect to Silk Route Museum. (non-admin closure) Mkdw ^talk 08:26, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mei Ping Wu

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

Completely unsourced -- and even if sourced, I find it questionable whether she would be notable apart from the museum. Delete or, if not deleted, merge to Silk Road Museum. --Nlu (talk) 01:01, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Why not just skip the AfD entirely, redirect this article to the museum article and unlink it in there. rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:46, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MJ94 (talk) 00:12, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:04, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Silk Route Museum as the only information I have been able to find in English is that this person is the founder of the museum. The current article is a one sentence stub. If sources establishing notability and furnishing biographical details are discovered, I would not oppose recreating the article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:37, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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