The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
WP:BLP, relying exclusively on primary and unreliable sources, of a film producer with no especially strong claim of notability that would actually get him past WP:CREATIVE — and his company, which cites exactly no sources at all to demonstrate that it would pass WP:CORP. Delete both unless real, substantive sourcing can actually be found to salvage them with. Bearcat (talk) 23:24, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. The production company simply fails to meet WP:ORG. As for the possibility suggested above that Gallay may meet WP:AUTHOR as a jounralist, that simply isn't the case right now as I see no coverage to indicate he is a notable journalist. The best clima for notability would be as a director. To that end, he is verifiably teh co-director of "The Manor" (see credit from Hot Docs film festival). However, that is a single peive of work, and the focus of coverage is on Shawney Choen. For example, see this story from Now Magazine Toronto. -- Whpq (talk) 15:48, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete - per WP:NRIVALRY, derbies are not inherently notable and specifically not notable because they have been played a number of times, they require significant reliable coverage in third party sources, beyond WP:ROUTINE stat sites to establish GNG. Fenix down (talk) 14:49, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - WP:NRIVALRY states that derbies are not inherently notable, meaning that they should not just be considered notable due to their status as a derby. This is not the same as what you mention ("inherently non-notable"), which indicates that derbies are naturally not notable. Minor syntax mistake, I assume, but still worth a clarification. Regards.--MarshalN20Talk20:34, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
WP:BLP of a person notable only as a school trustee and as an unelected candidate in the 2014 Ontario provincial election — neither of which is a claim of notability that satisfies WP:POLITICIAN. No prejudice against recreation in the future if she ever actually wins election to an office notable enough to net her a Wikipedia article, but as things currently stand she's a delete. Bearcat (talk) 22:28, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - she does hold an elected political office, but a school trustee is well below what would meet anything in WP:POLITICIAN. As a candidate for provincial, and federal elections, I see only the usual election coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 15:54, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete - In addition to the contradictory claim that a California based company is one of the "Top 25 Software Testing Companies in India", there are simply too few sources available to pass WP:ORGDEPTH.- MrX22:46, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An article by a blocked WP:COI contributor; the promotional intent was even clearer under its original title "Indium Software - Enhancing Software Quality". A couple of multi-vendor market review listings do not constitute in-depth coverage of the company (though these possibly preclude a CSD A7) and I am finding no better. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 06:48, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Promotional article by a COI editor. Can be recreated later if it passes WP:GNG. I don't see any obvious signs of notability on Google. It seems to be an Indian company, so maybe there are Hindi sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:03, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
According to the only WP:RS I can find, this project -- which has been promoted for years -- is still merely proposed. "It will very probably house the relocated headquarters of Standard Life" sounds like obvious WP:OR. It would be great if this were to be built, I suppose, but I just don't think it meets our notability requirements, as of now. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:27, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Proposed but as-yet-unbuilt buildings can pass our notability rules if they're actually the subject of substantial coverage in reliable sources, but this appears not to be (and, for that matter, even built buildings can fail to pass our notability rules if they're not — we most certainly do not have any rule that every building in existence automatically gets an article just because it exists.) In addition, while I suppose I might be confusing it with a different proposed but as yet unbuilt office tower on de Maisonneuve, I actually have a nagging suspicion that we've seen and deleted this before under a different article title. Bearcat (talk) 18:20, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
There'd have to be a lot more than one article, though. The new One World Trade Center is probably the textbook example of what I mean when I talk about how a proposed but unbuilt building can already have enough notability to merit an article — it had an article long before construction was even a rumour, because the sheer volume of coverage it garnered just as a proposal (and the reason why it garnered that much coverage in the first place) pushed it over the bar. Bearcat (talk) 23:32, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if neglected to do a proper search for "Ouest," silly me. Anyway, there's the J de Mtl one above, and this French-language RS. So that's two. And then lots of little mentions like this going back, god, ten years. I still say wait until we get a shovel in the ground because a small building like this isn't going to be like an unbuilt major project, imo. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:00, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep. Found significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources to establish notability. Several sources listed here are lightweight, and Buzzfeed's article ludicrously written, but even that seems factual, and I think indicates some measure of notability. Established media like The Telegraph and the BBC provide more detailed coverage. The BBC sources should probably be considered a single source for purposes of notability.
Hewlett, Steve (2013-10-30). "Press regulation, JacksGap, Bedlam". The Media Show. BBC. (BBC Radio 4 show has 2.4 minute interview with JackGap's creators) (30 minute audio piece with interview)
"Creating YouTube channels". College of Production, The BBC Academy. BBC. (BBC-produced College of Production podcast, includes JacksGap creator as one of three interviewees in a discussion of Youtube channels)
Brinnand, Alex (2014-06-18). "JacksGap robbed at gunpoint". Ten Eighty. Lightweight online journalism, heavy on quoted tweets to tell the story.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Sigh - Delete it if you will, most of the information is in the article about Bob Morane, except the printing history. However, what is the point of deleting such articles? It is accurate (google gives several catalogs), does no harm, and could motivate someone, even if 10 or 20 years from now, to contribute more content, e.g. plot summary. Think of it as a stub. The reason why it has no sources is that it was written before references were required (or even allowed) by Wikipedia. Would you consider that the work spent in putting up harmless articles for deletion, forcing editros to come to this forum do discuss the deletion, etc. could be better employed constructively in other articles -- adding contents, fixing style and grammar, deleting thse useless and irritating editorial tags, etc. Not to mention that deleting an article, even trivial like this one, means throwing away perhaps half an hour of well-intentined work of someone who was trying to help Wkipedia -- the sort of people that Wikipedia desperately needs. Such an arrogant negative feedback ("your work is garbage, we don't want it") for something as arbitrary as "non-notability" drives such people away. (I did a statistical study of the growth of Wikipedia, some years ago, and noted that the body of editors had been shrinking since 2006, when seeral stricter "purity" policies were instituted. I am hardly the only one to have noticed that scary trend. Since then I saw many attempts by the Foundation to reverse that trend, but unfortunately the Foundation seems unable or unwilling to recognize the main causes of the problem -- which include the AfD mechanism. Sigh. --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 02:11, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete, I'm not sure that this article passes WP:CORP. Seems to be a minor platform at best. Article should be completely rewritten if kept but I doubt that a rewrite will fix the issues I see thus why I'm at afd. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 19:06, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It should be kept. I do not consider it a minor platform, huge sports stars use the website like Cristiano Renaldo and it is a viable and useful source of sports information, and a great place to connect with like minded sports fans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelvance56 (talk • contribs) 10:09, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Comment - Several of the sources I posted above ([8], [9], [10]) expound upon the website's origins, history, usage, coverage and availability. I disagree with the notion of all of the sources available about the website being solely about investment in the company, because plainly put, they're not. Furthermore, I maintain that this topic meets WP:WEBCRIT. Lastly, the article has been copy edited and expanded. NorthAmerica100022:51, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Thanks to NA1K for the article improvements. In reviewing the sources, Sprotlobster is being covered, and yes, it does include funding infromation, but the coverage goes beyond just investing announcement coverage to level where such coverage is significant. I would say The National article is probably the best example of coverage in that it features SportLobster as the primary subject, covers it in significant depth, and the article isn't at all about covering investments and funding. -- Whpq (talk) 16:05, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. None of the "delete" commenters have explicitly indicated whether their !votes are to be taken to apply to the Fort-5 article as well (and its nomination is rather buried in the discussion), so although I'm going to delete it, I'll restore it upon request. Deor (talk) 11:37, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question - is Modern Firearms considered as a reliable source? I don't tend to touch articles that have it as a ref or external link, but I just saw that this one has an entry there. Asked on WT:WikiProject Firearms as well. Also, bundling this article in:
Delete...Not in production, appears to be in the glossy brochure stage...the only source for this pistol states that "the future of this pistol is still uncertain".--RAF910 (talk) 03:45, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep OK, so notability isn't inherited and all that, but the list of people who have contributed to the magazine is pretty much a who's who of quality football journalism, any given issue will contain articles by multiple William Hill Sports Book of the Year nominees. Extracts from it have been printed in publications such as The Guardian. Here's some coverage from Forbes[12] and a piece in the Press Gazette[13]. Oldelpaso (talk) 18:16, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough significant coverage of this in independent reliable sources eg [14], [15], [16], [17], [18]. This isn't dripping in notability, yet equally the criteria is only that it needs enough. Article could do with improving, rather than deleting. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 21:30, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Only two of those sources have a Wikipedia page, and those pages have a total of two sources and should possibly be up for deletion as well. Hardly screaming notability. Also one of the articles you've linked is a direct copy of the Guardian's article! RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 22:08, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Since when did we judge the reliability of a source by the quality of its Wikipedia article? There may well be reasons to question some of those sources, but the state of, or lack of, an article here is not one of them. Oldelpaso (talk) 10:28, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:The Wikipedia articles having two references between them suggests those sources aren't very notable, ergo not significant. All the articles run along the same theme of using the Wilson quote about why he started it, then go on about the name of the magazine, then go on about PDF files. At the very least, this should be put into a subsection of Wilson's own Wikipedia page. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 19:34, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Keep good grief, there's an awful lot of significant sources quoted above to be having a debate about this! Nfitz (talk) 17:33, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Awful lot of significant sources? Like what? The only significant sources is The Guardian, and that is basically an announcement of the launch, a recurring theme in the links given above to suggest notability. All quote Wilson about why he launched this, and all go on about where the name came from, and all go on about it being abvailable in PDF's. At the very least, this should be put into a subsection of Wilson's own Wikipedia page. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 19:34, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This is essentially a contentious BLP article without sources; "Uribism" is the eponymous political ideology of a living person, Alvaro Uribe. (I was going to nominate this through WP: BLPPROD, but since this article isn't EXACTLY a biography, I elected to use WP: AfD instead). Holdek (talk) 16:48, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The suggestion seems to be that the subject is not important. This pages are about the committees who develop important standards within the ISO organization. The standards deal with terminology, language resources, translating and interpreting. If there is something which should be added please suggest this. I am new to Wikipedia and am happy to take advice on improving this page. However, it is important. Peterrey (talk) 06:07, 27 June 2014 (UTC)peterrey Peter Reynolds.[reply]
So far, you give no evidence that this sub committee is notable. You can try to prove this with reliable, independent (= non-ISO) sources. The Bannertalk07:23, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per The Banner. We have a nice (but not overly-long) ISO/TC 37 article on the committee that could have a sentence or two about each subcommittee's scope and any key actions. But it doesn't seem like the subcomittee itself is independently notable. This suite of articles (there are several other /SC as well) seems too detailed, getting towards WP:NOTDIR of corporate structure and mostly just a way of collecting and organizating links to the various ISO standards each develops. That last idea sounds like a great scope of List of International Organization for Standardization standards as a unified and organized list. DMacks (talk) 19:19, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I just found we already have that list (I fixed the link in my previous comment). If the committees handling them are particularly relevant (would someone actually want to search by that criterion?), could have an alternative page with them organized that way rather than strictly numerically. DMacks (talk) 20:01, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
are parallel subcommittes of the same parent, nominated with the same rationale and with same response, but fewer other comments. DMacks (talk) 20:08, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Article "Flavia C. Gernatt" should either be redirected to the article, "Daniel R. Gernatt, Sr.", merged, or in and of itself be deleted. Carriearchdale (talk) 21:39, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE as nominator. The article, Flavia C. Gernatt includes much of the same information as in the article about her husband, [[19]] at the article where he is the subject. User Daniellagreen has already started canvassing for editors votes here. [[20]] Actually Daniellagreen earlier on this same date asked and/or canvassed for the same user to "review" the article. See here: [[21]] Apparently the user who created this article wanted the article to be reviewed more quickly than it may have occurred if left to the normal system where editors use the page curation toolbar, and are encouraged to start reviewing the oldest articles first, and work toward the more recently created articles. It sometimes gives the articles creator time to refine and polish the newly created article. Actually the particular user who initial put a reviewed check on the article has been encouraged and asked by other editors in the past to wait a couple days after the creation of an article to review it. Also, user/creator of this article again is canvassing [[22]] other editors in relationship with this deletion discussion. ciao!!! Carriearchdale (talk) 23:07, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep A quick Google search shows that at least Flavia C. Gernatt's death was notable. I do not yet have an opinion on whether this article should stand alone, merged with Daniel R. Gernatt, Sr. or even both merged with Gernatt Family of Companies, as I do not know how important the individual entities are. Thanks Piguy101 (talk) 23:11, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Comparing the two articles [23] shows that a rather hefty amount of text is identical between the articles. I am not sure what the policy is for this. Hmmm Piguy101 (talk) 23:27, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Subject is actually notable, some of these subjects may have few thousands of results in google search engine, but if you search them thoroughly in the newspaper archives then you will find at least 10 events every single year when they used to be active. Foundation Grants to Individuals, D and B Million Dollar Directory - Volume 2 are some example of google books that have detailed people like him. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 00:38, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OccultZone Comment - directed toward occultzone- DO NOT edit, and or change any comment or statement I am making here at this afd discussion. As far as I am aware you do not have the admin right here at the english wikipedia. Again, I am putting you occultzone on notice to NOT change, or edit my comments or statements here at this afd. If you disagree with anything I have done or posted, you are of course welcome to join the discussion, but do please be aware that since the creator of this article "canvassed", you to review the article, as well as canvassing you when the afd notice was placed, any particular vote you may cast here may be given less weight, or tossed out due the the double canvassing that has already gone on in and around this article. ciao!!! Carriearchdale (talk) 01:06, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment User/creator of the article up for discussion here is still trying to round up editors and CANVAS editors here. [[25]] ciao!!! Carriearchdale (talk)
Comment As per watchlist records 5 July 2014 "(diff | hist) . . Flavia C. Gernatt; 00:04 . . (-4) . . Carriearchdale (talk | contribs) (Feel free to edit the article, but the article must not be blanked, and this notice must not be removed, until the discussion is closed. ~ Undid revision 615634138 by Daniellagreen (talk))" ciao!!! Carriearchdale (talk)
Comment Carriearchdale, I have asked three editors to weigh in for comments, including the one who originally reviewed it, another who may have an interest in in, as well as an editor who is a trusted mentor to me. I wouldn't call that "rounding up" when I've only asked three people for their comments and views. At any rate, that is beside the point. You posted this as an article for deletion; I am interested to gain others views so that I can learn more about the issue. Again, the article is substantiated with the relevant sources and does meet Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for a stand-alone biographical article. She has been notable in areas including horse breeding, harness racing, mining, business, entrepreneurship, dairy farming, philanthropy, and being a business woman. References support all of that. So, I don't understand your issue with it. Daniellagreen(talk)(cont)00:22, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "Feel free to edit the article, but it shouldn't be blanked." What does that mean, anyway. I added hyperlinks to another article so that the other article is not orphaned. I still don't understand the issue. Daniellagreen(talk)(cont)00:29, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
CommentUser:Carriearchdale responded to my comment on the article's talk page that I had deleted the deletion banner, but I did not. The article's edit history reflects that I added hyperlinks and did not delete anything. I don't know what she's talking about. Also, fyi, she has been following me around on these pages: Daniel R. Gernatt, Jr., Daniel R. Gernatt, Sr., and Flavia C. Gernatt in the past few days, generally making edits and adding templates about the nature of the articles. Daniellagreen(talk)(cont)00:52, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Again, trying to learn and improve regarding this is my aim. Requesting suggestions and perspectives on it should be viewed as helpful for me to improve. It should be noted that User:Carriearchdale now appears to be edit warring on this article regarding my addition of hyperlinks; no tag or anything was ever deleted, only the hyperlinks were added - all the diffs reflect that. Being constructive about this, rather than disruptive, should be the primary concerns here, Daniellagreen(talk)(cont)03:28, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural comment First, I was asked to come here by the article's author and that should be disclosed. My vote is a neutral vote for what it is worth. Second, this discussion is a layout mess. If some kind soul would be willing to clean it up to make it easier to read, that would be nice. John from Idegon (talk) 06:31, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Without this discussion from becoming too bitter, I would like to note that canvasing is allowed, though sometimes discouraged. Regardless, editor behavior should not play a role in deletion discussion; article topic and content should. Piguy101 (talk) 01:13, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
One editor stated that the prior discussion was messy, so another editor organized it. I actually liked the manner in which he had organized it, because to me, it made it easier to read. Thanks, Daniellagreen(talk)(cont)14:02, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I see that User:Carriearchdale completely edited out what was left of the section regarding Sir Taurus (after I removed about half of it), however by virtue of Gernatt holding 1/2 ownership in the business, Dan Gernatt Farms, she was also half-owner of the horse. Any mention of Dan Gernatt Farms (while it may not specifically identify Flavia C. Gernatt) also includes Flavia as a half-partner/half-owner. That should be a fact that is understood, without having to provide any further explanation. Daniellagreen(talk)(cont) 17:55, 5 July 2014 (UTC) Note that I have re-added some previously deleted information regarding Sir Taurus and Dan Gernatt Farms, Flavia Gernatt being half-owner of Dan Gernatt Farms, as the references support. Daniellagreen(talk)(cont) 18:46, 5 July 2014 (UTC) I've edited out some additional information, and trimmed the article for further improvement, Daniellagreen(talk)(cont)14:16, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Users, editors, and or any other interested parties please see also [[26]]
Please see also statement on talk page of this article being discussed regarding possible deletion, merge or whatever decision is made. ciao!!! Carriearchdale (talk) 17:46, 6 July 2014 (UTC) [[27]][reply]
Comment to Carriearchdale: You have spent considerable time in removing information and references that I added, that are relevant, and that help establish notability for Daniel R. Gernatt, Jr., Daniel R. Gernatt, Sr., Flavia C. Gernatt, and now, Dan Gernatt Farms. As I stated on the articles for deletion page that you established, it should be understood that a business is a partnership; Daniel R. Gernatt, Sr. and Flavia C. Gernatt had an equal partnership in the business, and therefore, they are notable as owners of the horses identified. I have also informed on the articles for deletion talk page that you have been following me around the past several days on the articles identified, basically deleting information and references, and adding tags that are not useful. When another editor asked you about that on your talk page, you simply didn't respond, and instead, archived his question. Your actions are akin to stalking. Do you have something, either against me, or against the Gernatt's, as evidenced by your actions? If so, perhaps it would be helpful to get it out on the table and discuss it. Perhaps, in good faith, you believe you are being helpful, but I'm not sure I understand the basis for much of your edits and arguments. Information and references that help establish and secure further notability to these subjects should not be removed from the articles but maintained. As is reflected here, and in the articles for deletion page, it appears that you are the only person who has a serious issue about any of the articles that I've identified. Daniellagreen(talk)(cont)18:13, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Follow-up to Carriearchdale, for the record so that everyone is aware of my rebuttal to this editor's accusations: So, these are your reasons for stalking me on these pages, because you suspect me of doing paid editing? And, how unnecessarily and incorrectly judgmental is that? As I state on my user page, I have no associations with any of the pages and/or articles that I edit. I am not a family member, not a relative in any way, not an employee, and not even a member in any way of any of the entities about which I have edited. I state it very clearly on my user page that I have no affiliations with any of the articles and/or entities, nor do I get paid any money for them. I have not received one cent for anything, nor have I asked to be paid, nor have I been solicited to be paid. I think it is your actions on Wikipedia that are detrimental, as your actions to the above-referenced articles have reflected. So many people on Wikipedia are so unnecessarily judgmental, it is no wonder that people take offense when they are asked or accused of doing something that they have not. Wikipedia is my hobby. It is something in which I have an interest, and I edit and/or create articles in which I also have an interest. Period. Your accusations are offensive, incorrect, and unnecessary. We should all be working to improve Wikipedia and the articles on it; it appears to me that your actions regarding these articles have not reflected that, for the most part. You obviously have some imaginary issue with me that you, yourself, have incorrectly conjured up. I feel sorry for you as it appears that you are obsessed with me and my editing. I don't follow you around and make attacks on any articles that you have edited and/or created. Please. It appears that more of your time is being spent on stalking me and attacking these articles than in making any attempts to improve them. Daniellagreen(talk)(cont)19:55, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article, Flavia C. Gernatt includes relevant sources that are according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, including widely reliable sources such as The Buffalo News, a nationally-recognized newspaper, and the widely-dispersed journal, Pit & Quarry. The article should remain as an individual article, and not merged or deleted. This article meets relevant guidelines and policies to be an independent Wikipedia article. Daniellagreen(talk)(cont) 21:58, 4 July 2014 (UTC) I have included additional information and references to the article that reflect independent notability of Gernatt, and I've trimmed out some potentially excess information, Daniellagreen(talk)(cont)14:21, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
commentuser:daniellagreen My statement is, as to, and regarding all this vitriole you are now spewing across all the pages of dear sweet wikipedia is, as before, "please do govern yourself accordingly!!!"[1] "To govern one's self is to control one's self, or monitor one's self. Therefore govern yourself accordingly means act as you see fit. However, this also implies that you are totally responsible for anything that occurs and anything that you do." [2]
Note Any and all of my comments and responses to this user do not appear to be accepted in good faith. Therefore, please note that I am no longer going to attempt further conversation here with her/him as the situation does not appear to be productive or improving, Daniellagreen(talk)(cont)17:27, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note If a decision is made to merge the article, it should be specified as Daniel R. Gernatt, Sr. and Flavia C. Gernatt, since there are several men with the name, Daniel R. Gernatt, Daniellagreen(talk)(cont)17:29, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (some of it) and Redirect to some other article (which article, by the way, cannot and should not be dictated by the article's creator). I'm not seeing any independent notability at all. It seems like a personal tribute, full of a lot of personal and non-notable, inconsequential information. Any notability stems from the farm and the horses and the business; all of the other stuff can and should go. Wikipedia is not the place for such excessive, non-notable, personal tributes. A good look at WP:GNG puts this all into perspective, I think. Anyway, I empathize with the fact that the creator of the article is being hounded and possibly stalked by another editor, which is how I happened to see this AfD, but the fact is, this lengthy article is not of encyclopedic value and belongs on a personal website somewhere, not on Wikipedia. Softlavender (talk) 04:08, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Easily meets WP:GNG. There will obviously be similarities in spouses' articles, especially when they work together. Harry the Dog WOOF15:44, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Daniellagreen: Deletion discussions are normally allowed to run for 7 days from being nominated, and this one isn't quite there yet. Sometimes discussions are closed early if there is an obvious result but I don't think that's the case here. An administrator will be along in due time to review the discussion and make a closing statement, or relist for further discussion.
@Softlavender:WP:AGF. This discussion has been an enormous mess. At some point editors made an effort to make some sense of it and did so logically by grouping like comments together. If you want to try to rearrange for chronological order, nobody's stopping you. Ivanvector (talk) 19:34, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, User:Ivanvector. Also, User:Softlavender, I am aware of those guidelines, and it is 7 days today, so I thought my request to be reasonable. Geesh. A little consideration would have been nice since this is the first afd issue that I've experienced. Further, a couple of folks have invested the time to try to better organize this, and all of that was undone. I'm sure if there is a serious issue with my moving one comment up to a location that I believed to be appropriate, then it can be moved back. To me, it is just easier to read with it there. I had already been informed regarding traditional procedure after moving it. Daniellagreen(talk)(cont)20:47, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just remember that everyone here is a volunteer, including the admins, and that back-ups are not unusual in the more prosaic tasks. I'm sure that someone will be along to close it within a day or two. If not, someone else will put it on a list of unclosed AfDs that need attention. Please have patience. BMK (talk) 22:12, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Poorly sourced (the few actual "references" being cited are either primary or unreliable ones, and the vast majority of the content is entirely unsourced) WP:BLP of a journalist, written in a manner that sometimes teeters dangerously close to being an outright advertisement instead of a neutral encyclopedia article ("‘Struggling to make the society fair and better is a historical challenge which has to be analyzed in open dialogue, there may be many ways to follow and many grounds to work!’ he says!") It's certainly possible that he might be notable enough to qualify for a properly written and properly sourced article — it's so bad that I can't make heads or tails of what's a WP:CREATIVE-satisfying claim of notability and what's inflated promotional puffery. But even if he does, it's not the assertion of passing a Wikipedia inclusion criterion that gets a person past that criterion, but the quality of sourcing that can be provided to verify the assertion — and the "sourcing" here doesn't cut it in the least. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 23:02, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I would have covered the article with all the relevant tags and left it for another time. However, for all we know it may be complete fabrication. The other language is Sinhalese which is not translated by Google. However I tried to search on the Sinhalese name and got very few results. A lot of work has gone into the page. Total number of edits 166,
Total number of distinct authors 16 and all since April. There may be hope that something justifiable will come from this. Gregkaye (talk) 19:20, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, because of the potential for harm to our article topics if their lives and careers are misrepresented at all, we actually require WP:BLPs to include reliable sourcing from the start — we don't and can't allow them to linger in the inadequate state that we might tolerate in an article about a building or an organization or a concept, but rather we have to target them for policy compliance immediately. I'd be happy to withdraw this if good sourcing actually shows up while this discussion is still open, but we can't keep a badly sourced BLP just because it might eventually get better. Bearcat (talk) 18:31, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep The EP consists of only one song, but in four/five track versions. It appeared on Billboard Christian Songs chart at No. 1. If necessary the article could be moved/renamed for the song as there is no separate article. However, it should not be deleted.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 04:06, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The EP has been described in 3+ independent sources (see below), and should be kept as a stand-alone article. A separate article for the single would also be notable.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 06:58, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep I have no idea why this was PRODed. A Google search of "'oceans' ep hillsong" brought up five results on the first two pages: [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], and a g-search of Christianity Today brought up this. There's probably more out there, but these sources alone are enough for a keep. I'd also say create an article for the song, it is definitely notable (notable enough that this EP was created because of it).--¿3family6contribs14:18, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Oppose, with all of the novellas printed that should make it notable. Individual books likely will not get articles written about them.Frmorrison (talk) 21:19, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. I was unable to find any reliable sources that spoke of the series of novellas as a whole. Nothing seems to indicate that there is anything especially notable about it, aside from being spin offs of the Star Trek franchise, and notability is not inherited. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 22:32, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Fails WP:NBIO. Only brief mentions in a few articles (actually referred to as "brief mention" in the citations), and I'm not seeing anything more substantial when I search. — Rhododendritestalk | 18:39, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge what little content there is with his father's article Robert Everett (computer scientist) per WP:PRESERVE. I'm also unable to find significant coverage (though it's not helped by him sharing a name with a criminal and an author) to justify a standalone bio. However, he could have a mention of a sentence or two in his father's article, since it is relevant to that and the invention in question was shared with his dad. Valenciano (talk) 20:49, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Torn between Delete and Merge - Definitely not worth its own article but the subject isn't even mentioned in the article on his father. SPACKlick (talk) 11:08, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The inclusion criteria for this list is wired. Being a "cultural icon" has no precise definition. There may be sources which call anybody a "cultural icon". And not just people; books, paintings, monuments and other objects may be as well called "cultural icons". If we make a list of every person and object whom someone somewhere called a "cultural icon", what is the purpose of that list? Vanjagenije (talk) 13:47, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
re: the purpose of the list: you spelled it: a list of every item someone called "cultuiral icon", with a small, nearly unnoticeable correction: bearing in mind wikipedia rules, this "someone must be a reliable source, i.e., a source with sufficient expertise to reasonably declare that someone or thing does represent Poland. 19:58, 24 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Staszek Lem (talk • contribs)
Reply <he-he>. On the contrary, quick google search shows that unlike English, Poles don't have a tendency to abuse the term 'kulturalna ikona/ikona kulturalna'. Therefore I had to expand the definition of the list in the lede including the concept "symbol of Poland". Even with these two defs after spending one hour I could find refs only for this short list. And I am lazy to further expand it :-), although I can name much more Polish "cultural icons" (along the lines of the English) right off my head. 23:27, 24 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Staszek Lem (talk • contribs)
Delete – It doesn't matter if other stuff exists; I would prefer to see all the "Lists of cultural icons" deleted as OR frivolities. They will always have the appearance of a contest or ranking, and they will always be incomplete. The entries would be better presented as prose in the corresponding articles of Category:Culture by nationality if they're actually that important. SteveStrummer (talk) 05:51, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree that the other "iconic" articles are OR frivolities, this AfD is about a particular article. I specifically started it as 100% referenced, therefore IMO your annoyance with OR is not applicable here. We have numerous inherently incomplete ORish lists, even List of physicists is one. Yes, 'other stuff exists' does not matter, but "IDONTLIKEIT" does not matter either. Please indicate which wikipedia guidelines are violated, in your opinion. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:00, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I respect your efforts, here and elsewhere, to build substantive referenced articles, but I do believe here you are chasing a chimera. If I must point to guidelines to validate my vote, I'll use WP:OR and WP:INDISCRIMINATE because the article's premise is not a valid one – not for an encyclopedia, anyway. The only common thread in the entries is that someone somewhere used the less-than-specific term "cultural icon" to describe them. Even with every entry having a citation, the article is ultimately no less OR than any of the other lists. Each source is specific to one particular entry and wholly unrelated to all the others. I don't believe they add up to a convincing sum. And I don't think they ever will: I've never seen a broad survey of "cultural icons of Poland" (or any other country) that was even halfway scholarly, and I'm not sure that any exist. SteveStrummer (talk) 21:02, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OR is inapplicable to lists (no content to be OR). Neither is INDISCRI (did you look into it lately?) Here an applicable guideline is WP:LISTS & its spawns. However your last argument (no special scholar discussion of cultural icons of Poland) does seem convincing. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:24, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Delete - Not an encyclopedic topic. No logical paramaters for inclusion or exclusion, ergo entirely subjective original content. Carrite (talk) 18:17, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Such lists by country are highly encyclopedic, if reliable sources exist which say "X, Y, and Z" are cultural icons of Country A". Edison (talk) 01:13, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What the hell did the nominator intend to communicate when he said "The inclusion criteria for this list is wired." What kind of wire was used? Edison (talk) 01:15, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep High-quality sources exist and the topic is notable and encyclopedic. Yes, the article is somewhat flawed. However, this is a problem that can be fixed by editing, so deletion is not necessary. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:39, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I challenge the notion that there are sources which call everyone and everything a "cultural Icon." To the contrary, travel guides and books about a country's cultural heritage generally have largely overlapping lists of cultural icons, meaning things from a country which are known worldwide. That said, every such article will gain unreferenced vanispamcruft additions no sources would call cultural icons. Deletion is not an appropriate substitute for the normal editing process. Edison (talk) 03:03, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think reasonable Wikipedians would agree that such articles or lists for larger nation-states probably are notable, so such articles on France, Poland, and Russia would be notable. I'm not sure about smaller states. Bearian (talk) 17:41, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Comment Actually harmonica solos have a fair representation in books. For example Harmonica Tune Book, etc. But they are not the harmonica solos that this article refers to, which are all post-1960, so far as I've seen. Most lists of harmonica solos include folk songs and composers like Stephen Foster. --Bejnar (talk) 05:32, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Delete - This appears to be original research. There are no sources. The inclusion criteria appears to be any song with an harmonica solo rather than notable harmonica solos. Perhaps there is a valid list article under this title, but what we have here is not it. -- Whpq (talk) 16:27, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. As is common with mass nominations, it would be better to nominate them individually and thus I am closing no consensus with no prejudice to immediate re-nomination here Black Kite (talk)10:33, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Subjects (Anderson and the bundled biographies of LDS Church leaders below) are not notable in the WP:GNG sense; I did not find significant independent coverage of the subjects in reliable sources. Significant coverage occurs in publications owned or supported by the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Church News, Deseret News, Ensign, Liahona, Lds.org, etc.), but because of the subjects' positions within the church, the sources are not independent of the subjects.
MULTIPLE NOMINATIONS: I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons:
Redirection to the "Second Quorum" list section above is an option instead of deletion. I favor deletion as I don't see the benefit to redirection in this case; searching for a name on Google or typing it in Wikipedia will still get you to the list page.
For other AfD discussions of biographies from the same "Second Quorum" list section, see:
Keep all I am trying to be understanding about all these articles being nominated for deletion. But I don't believe any Wikipedia editor has the right to nominate a bunch of articles at once. I still believe that independent sources that satisfied WP:GNG could be found given an appropriate amount of time. I still maintain that currently-serving general Church leaders are relevant article topics and that the articles should be worked on to improve them before straight up nominating them for deletion. I also maintain in particular that the article about Martinez is relevant because he is the first General Authority Seventy to be called from the Caribbean Area. I also believe that the Ochoa article has relevance because he first served in the general presidency of the Young Men before the time of his call. However, I also recognize that the consensus has ruled to delete the five articles above, and that a consensus to delete will likely result from the Dyches article, as well as the articles mentioned above. You may find this hard to believe, but I am not on Wikipedia all day every day. This means I only have a limited period of time per day to see what changes have been made and to give my opinion on items in question that concern me. I believe that these articles can and should be improved and that sources independent of the Church can be found. But it's clear my opinion doesn't make a difference and doesn't amount to much. So, at the outset, I would say that, since I have expresed an opinion, this will likely be my only comment. I would encourage all those involved in this discussion to be courteous and respectful, even as opinions differ. Thanks. --Jgstokes (talk) 07:15, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Jgstokes, I appreciate your constructive opinions. Bundling multiple deletion nominations together is an established practice covered in the AfD guidelines at WP:BUNDLE. I disagree that more time would help find significant independent coverage in all or nearly all of these cases, at least searching for information among online sources. Serious researchers/journalists with a travel budget could dig up obscure/old local coverage of some people, but that's unlikely for these articles. I also disagree with your reasoning on Martinez & Ochoa; they may be notable in the generic non-Wikipedia sense, but if they didn't attract notice of independent sources, don't meet WP's notability criteria. ––Agyle (talk) 08:25, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Jgstokes, you're being somewhat disengenuous. Here, you argue "I don't believe any Wikipedia editor has the right to nominate a bunch of articles at once." In the past, you've argued that they should be bundled. pbp13:45, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep O. Vincent Haleck. Haleck has received significant and consistent coverage in the Samoa Observer, which is a kind of "newspaper of record" for Samoa. He's definitely a notable person within Samoa and American Samoa. (Some of the coverage in the Observer amounts to little more than regurgitation/repackaging of LDS Church press releases. I do think that the fact that the Observer reports on such items is at least somewhat significant, though. Other news outlets in the Pacific have also done similar things, such as Scoop.) At this stage, I haven't investigated the others in enough detail to warrant an opinion. Good Ol’factory(talk)23:16, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good Ol’factory, the Somoa Observer article you added is an unmodified LDS Church press release, somewhat confusingly attributed at the bottom to "Newsroom", which is the name of the publication the LDS Church used to issue the press release. (Or technically, Intellectual Reserve, Inc., which owns Newsroom, used it; they're an LDS Church subsidiary). Press releases are specifically listed in WP:GNG as not independent from the issuer. ––Agyle (talk) 00:18, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I know that one is, but there has been other coverage, the links of which are now unavailable, but which appeared in the print copy. As I mentioned above, even when an independent source reproduces a non-independent press release, I think it bears some significance as to notability of the subject. If the person or subject was deemed by the source to be of no consequence, why reproduce the press release? Good Ol’factory(talk)00:22, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can think of other reasons, but even if it's because the editor finds the subject notable, and may connote some notability in the generic sense, my interpretation of WP:N is it shouldn't count toward Wikipedia's notability. Maybe I'm misinterpreting its intent, but WP:N's sections WP:GNG, WP:WHYN, and WP:SPIP lead me to the that conclusion. "We require that all articles rely primarily on 'third-party' or 'independent sources' so that we can write a fair and balanced article..." I'd take a moment to read them if you haven't before. ––Agyle (talk) 01:31, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have read them, thx. I think the guideline as written is probably ambiguous as to what exactly it means for WP notability when a reliable source reproduces a non-independent press release. I would argue that if that is all you have, then the person is probably not notable, but if you have that in addition to other stuff that indicates notability, then it's at least a further confirmation of notability, if nothing else. In any case, this is just one of the examples of the Samoa Observer reporting on Haleck's activities, and the others aren't reproduced press releases, so I think there's still a good argument that he's notable. Good Ol’factory(talk)01:42, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If that's true, I'd count Somoa Observer as one source (more than one is the requirement). Unfortunately I couldn't find them; the cited dead-link articles aren't on archive.org, and don't seem searchable/retrievable from the Observer's site; perhaps you need to subscribe, or perhaps they did an upgrade and didn't put archives online. If it becomes make-or-break, I'll contact the paper for help. I Googled more extensively (nice unusual name!), and found no significant coverage except material generated by Church-owned entities. Some material considered:
Parenting with Spiritual Power (book): 1 paragraph (a sentence, and a quote from Haleck's Ensign article "Having the Vision to Do").
Huh. All-in-all, I'm still in favor of keeping this one, but I can also recognize that it's a relatively weak case when everything is considered together. So my keep would be a "weak keep", as they say. Maybe it's a case of him being somewhat notable within Samoa and Western Samoa but not really outside of the islands. Good Ol’factory(talk)23:19, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't taken the time to go through the other ones very carefully and search for possible sources. But it's my sense—and this is just a gut suspicion rather than anything I've actually confirmed—is that there probably is not enough in sources to make the others notable. I can see that there's a fair bit of coverage the Church News, Ensign, Liahona, Deseret News (which are all directly controlled and/or owned by the LDS Church) and few LDS-themed blogs/websites, but not much else outside of these. So I'm guessing the argument for deletion is sound. I notice that some of them are pretty new to the hierarchy; it's possible that in time some things could happen that would lead to more coverage in other sources. (I have been interested in editing these, so I'm not 100 percent unbiased—I don't have strong opinions as to whether all of them should exist or not, but if they do exist, I've been willing to work on cleaning them up somewhat since they are often a bit of a mess when first written.) Good Ol’factory(talk)05:14, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All These are important religious leaders. Martinez should definately be consdiered seperately because he is the first general authority to date from the Caribbean.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:58, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Who's comment is this "so?" directed to? JPL or me? I made my comment solely to point out that JPL's same rationale for wanting Martinez discussed separately apparently could apply to Malm. I wasn't commenting on the strength of the argument or adding support to it. Good Ol’factory(talk)21:32, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It was mostly to JPL, because he's claiming that being an important LDS leader is sufficient for inclusion. pbp04:47, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I found no independent sigificant coverage of Malm. Two independent articles (here, here) had one sentence listing newly appointed elders, apparently taken from this LDS press release. There's material about presumably different Per Malms, including a physician (12), screenplay author (3) and an actor (4). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agyle (talk • contribs)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Question So if we cannot use the Deseret News because it is "owned or supported by the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints", does this mean we can't use the Washington Times because it is "owned or supported by the right wing", and we can't use the Washington Post for left-wing sourcing? Our Deseret News article says that there is a joint operating agreement with the Salt Lake Tribune, so can an editor next argue that this is "too close" for comfort? Unscintillating (talk) 08:12, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No guidelines say which specific sources can be used in this case, and interpretions of the guidelines vary. However, I'd say while Wash. Post, Wash. Times, and SL Trib may have political biases, they are adequately independent sources for purposes of notability, while Deseret News and publications owned by the LDS Church are not. WP:N says "'independent of the subject' excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it", and a basic dictionary definition of affiliated is "(of a subsidiary group or a person) officially attached or connected to an organization". Deseret News is "officially attached" as a subsidiary of the LDS Church, and thereby affiliated with it; Deseret Management Corp's board of directors are all LDS Church general authorities. You might want to seek more opinions at Wikipedia talk:Notability. Agyle (talk) 18:22, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A more analogous situation (though one that is admittedly imperfect) might be in using the Wash Times as a sole source for articles about the Unification Church or its leadership. Good Ol’factory(talk)05:42, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And an article would have a lot more credence if it had sources other than the Washington Times. pbp05:30, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep All - I think we need an RFC on Mormon church leaders as there is no consensus as to which, if any, posts imply automatic notability. It's a bit unfair to gang nominate like this. Carrite (talk) 18:24, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Six "second Quorum" biographies were considered individually over the past two months, all resulting in deletion. Later nomination discussions repeated the same arguments, and nominating them individually just seems inefficient for all involved. Individual articles can be still be considered separately, and opinions and results can be split as seems appropriate. I don't see anything unfair about this approach.
I inquired about the "automatic notability" argument at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#Religious leaders, and the responses suggest that there is no literal automatic notability, but that terms like that are intended as a shorthand for "very likely to be found notable" based on the significant independent RS coverage found for similar article subjects. So far, significant independent RS coverage was not found for similar nominated article subjects, so there was no reason to refrain from nominating these subjects.
While you may think there should be literal automatic notability for LDS leaders, it's implausible that such a policy would be enacted at this time, and a "procedural keep" to consider such a change is unwarranted. Agyle (talk) 21:18, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Carrite:, are you volunteering to start this RfC? Jgstokes and Johnpacklambert have mentioned an RfC, but it's been two months since the first general authorities were AfDed, and they haven't done it. Also, what would be your venue for this RfC? The GNG talk page? pbp21:22, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In general (and I realize that this comment is more suited to the proposed RfC than this discussion)—I think that members of the 2nd Quorum of the Seventy are far less likely to be WP notable than some of the other LDS Church general authorities, like apostles. For starters, 2ndQ members are only temporary general authorities, not lifetime ones. Some of them are only in the position for five years or so. Unless they did something that made them notable before becoming a 2ndQ member (like maybe James O. Mason or Richard Wirthlin), I think it's quite unlikely that they will become WP notable for things they do during the short time they are in the 2ndQ. Good Ol’factory(talk)00:59, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Heisenberg uncertainty principle says that observation is not possible without an effect on the object of observation. This means that there is no such thing as an independent observer. For wp:notability, this means that even if we had Martians or the Watson of Jeopardy! fame writing newspapers, we would still not have truly independent observers. Unscintillating (talk) 03:56, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep all WP:NPASR without prejudice to merge, except keep O. Vincent Haleck The nomination stipulates that we have significant coverage and argues that the topic is not wp:notable. This defines merger. Unscintillating (talk) 03:56, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, the nomination specifies that there is specific coverage, but it isn't in reliable, independent, secondary sources. Therefore, how much of it there is is irrelevant. pbp14:13, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But the sources aren't reliable, independent sources. And it hasn't even been established there are sources for all of these articles. pbp20:30, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - As I initially started writing this I was leaning toward delete, but as I started hashing out the arguments, I now lean toward keep. I am not an expert on all the nuances of Wikipedia notability criteria, but it seems to me that generally speaking we need significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. The LDS sources are sufficiently reliable. There is a question as to their independence, but I'm willing to ignore that for now (for reasons that will be shown below). My biggest problem is that the coverage doesn't seem significant. The articles for most of these guys are sourced from a single article, which is usually the equivalent of the church's press release stating that the person has been put in the new position, with minimal biographic data to add some flavor. With a little digging some individuals appear significant for other reasons (for example, Kevin S. Hamilton - a similar individual who was recently deleted for the same above reasons might have been kept for his involvement in the CA Prop 8 debate, but I'm late coming to these discussions, and that apparently wasn't considered at the time he was deleted), but the sources used in these articles don't seem to constitute significant coverage.
However, there are exceptions where the coverage is not required. (Coverage creates a presumption of notability, but it is not necessarily sufficient or required.) There is a per se rule with regards to politicians who may or may not have significant news coverage, and the criteria for academics might also apply. Academics can be notable if they are recognized authorities in their fields (being a member of a prestigious board is sufficient to meet this criteria) and their fields are notable, even if there is not significant coverage from independent media sources (verifiability becomes the issue here, so while independent sources are not required to prove notability, they may be needed to verify claims if the only information available on an academic is on that academic's website. The LDS sources do appear sufficiently reliable to verify the information claimed, even if not sufficiently independent to provide notability). Religious officers are a weird blend of politician and academic in that they can have a significant impact on people through their quasi-executive, judicial, and legislative powers, they are clearly authorities in their fields, and most of this comes by virtue of their office and not necessarily from what they did before they got there. I think we should adopt similar guidelines with respect to the Latter-day Saints as exists for the Catholic hierarchy. General guidelines for the notability of LDS hierarchy would answer the question for all of the above candidates for deletion and the previously deleted candidates.
Members of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve would probably meet the notability criteria by virtue or their office similar to politicians. These individuals almost all have extensive news coverage from LDS and non-LDS sources, but even in the absence of significant coverage, the impact of these individuals on the membership of the LDS church is significant enough to make them notable. Church members will reference statements of these top authorities in a manner similar to the way American attorneys will cite Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court. These individuals speak at least twice a year to the entire church and make visits to various congregations around the world on an ongoing basis. If for no other reason than their significance within their own church, these individuals should probably be treated like academics or politicians, and the issue with these individuals shouldn't be notability, but verifiability. I would also suggest the same for members of the Presiding Bishopric, the Presidency of the Seventy, and possibly the Auxiliary Presidencies. Stake pesidents and bishops are clearly too low on the totem pole to be considered notable by virtue of their office. Though not decisive, they also serve as lay leaders on a part-time basis. Mission presidents are full-time, generally held in slightly higher prestige, but essentially at a similar rank to a stake prsident as far as actual authority goes. (I suppose a mission president may be slightly more likely to be considered notable for their work if they are the first person to bring the church into a new country.) The real debate here surrounds the question of whether Seventies should be notable by virtue of their office and nothing more.
Members of the Third through Eigth Quorums of the Seventy (or however many quorums there are now) theoretically have the potential to play a policy making role for the entire church (the church is governed by the combined consensus of all of the Quorums of the Seveny in the absense of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Tweleve), but this power does not appear to have ever taken effect, and members of these quorums are only considered "local authorities" who serve on a part-time and temporary basis. Their names are not generally known in the church, even in the local areas where they are considered authorities, their sermons are rarely recorded or repeated, and their directions and policies are rarely implemented outside of the individual congregations where they fulfilled a specific assignment, such as reorganizing a stake. The exception would be those members who also serve in an Area Presidency as part of their call.
On the other hand, members of the First and Second Quorums are considered "general authorities", meaning they can go to any congregation in the world and they automatically have the right to take control of the meeting, remove and replace local leaders, and even give policy directives that would remain in effect until revoked by another general authority in equal or higher rank. Rarely does this happen unless the Seventy is on a special assignment, but that is the nature of the office. They are also asked to speak in General Conference, but unlike the Apostles who are generally invited to speak at least once every six months, most seventies probably will only speak once every 5-10 years. When they do speak their words are treated as authoritative, and their sermons will be studied and are often made the topic of discussions in congregations around the world, but the sermons are usually not as closely studied as are the words of the Apostles, and the lower frequency of the sermons means there are fewer available to study. The only real difference between the First and Second Quorum is duration. The Second quorum serves for five years, the First Quorum serves until given emeritus status at age seventy. The other distinction is that notable members of the Second Quorum are typically called to serve in the First Quorum after being released, so the First Quorum is probably more "notable" from a Wikipedia perspective as well.
As a quasi-legislative body of significant weight in the LDS church whose individual members are held in such high regard that their every word is studied and analyzed, I think seventies can be considered per se notable. Would this apply to all quorums, just the First and Second, just the First, or just those who have actually spoken in General Conference (making them and their words the targets of a much higher level of scrutiny and probably public figures on the specific issue in most common law jurisdictions)? What about those seventies who served in Area Presidencies (where they played an active policy making role rather than waiting for an assignment)? In other cases (such as a Catholic Bishop) the concensus apperars to be that they are always found notable, even in the absence of sources. (See Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)#Religious_leaders). This is partly because the assumption is that sources exist, but may not always be readily accessible, but the fact is the office itself seems to be the deciding factor, not an assumption about sources. But even the source issue could easily apply to these officials. The LDS church keeps an extensive archive, and if one wanted one could certainly research the primary sources to analyze the specific activities of these individuals while serving in the office. Primary sources wouldn't provide a basis for notability (secondary sources are the rule), but if we accept notability based on the office then the primary sources could be the basis of beefing up the articles on these individuals.
Again, to summarize, because of the breadth of the actual authority of these individuals, and the way that their words are studied and cited as authoritative when they do speak to a larger audience (especially the General Conferences sermons of the First and Second Quorum members), I think there is a good argument to be made for keeping articles about the whole group being discussed herein. Vojen (talk) 20:56, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete Made-up branding for network's morning block of programming. Only links are Wiki-mirrors trying to spread out the concept that this block is named this way, but it's highly doubtful it's named this way except for industry sources only regarding ad sales. Weak redirect to CITV itself. Nate•(chatter)03:56, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. Consensus herein is leaning toward a keep close, but in my opinion isn't quite there for such a close in this rather borderline case. Content in some of the !votes such as "Indications are strong she meets the GNG", the subject having received "susbtantial articles in the widely read but not so reliable Daily Mail" and "Appears to meet the GNG" contributed to the no consensus result, because these notions are not aligned with plainly or obviously meeting stated guidelines. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica100008:07, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This article is irrelevant. Not every educator can get their article on Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Notability (academics). This individual doesn't meet the notability criteria (associate professor instead of distinguished/full professor; no noted awards and so on). The contents such as claims of prediction lack any credibility. Also, appearance in an episode of some leisure popular sci TV series is not notable regardless if the episode was nominated for an award. Besides, the article has been suffering from numerous problems for too long to be ignored any further; the tags make it look like a Christmas tree. The bragging is prevalent, namely the way "achievements" are blown out of proportion w/o reliable references to support the claimed "prediction genius" of this individual, and so on. Their main contribution seems to be co-authorship in developing of a sci theory, which is not notable either. It all points to turbo POV, bordering on delusional even. So I move for deletion. Holybeef (talk) 20:02, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep although I agree the current article is in sad shape, poorly referenced, original research, badly done. Indications of notability in the pageviews (see last 90 days) plus quick google search. Will try to improve but next few days I have to paint, work, oversee gas installation, etc. Indications are strong she meets the GNG which prevails over the WP:PROF (but if I find otherwise I'll redo my vote.)--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:31, 5 July 2014 (UTC) Adding: numerous RS found, important new theory to explain cosmology consistent with string theory; plus substantial pageviews even one day over 500+, suggesting notability (although pageviews is not officially a criteria of Wikipedia's idea of notability). Important scientist.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:20, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Tomwsulcer: The article is about a person so the nomination has nothing to do with the way the article is written. The numerous tags metaphor was used as a pointer to a broader lack of substance, not as a call for even more edits (and likely more tags). After a few years that this has been sitting around, last-minute touches, rephrasing whatever can be said about a person, mean nothing since they lack notability. Gene93k: I don't understand what you mean by "too early"? How can we foretell if someone will make a splash in science? Also, I don't see any problem with the nomination's tone; it's just usual calling a spade a spade. Holybeef (talk) 20:22, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The phrase "too early" indicates that the subject is not notable now, but might become notable in the future, as her career progresses. In other words, a deletion now does not rule out a possible re-creation and keep in a few years time. -- 101.117.108.115 (talk) 09:20, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Closing admin, please note that during the deletion review, this article was revamped to a solid article with good references; then User:Holybeef reverted the improvements, restored the COI/OR tags, against the spirit of WP:HEYMANN, to return the article to this flawed version, apparently fixated on deleting the earlier (flawed) article while preventing contributors from trying to fix it. Please consider the improved version in your review, thank you.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:20, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your plea is redundant as they always do. Note also I didn't state half of the reasons why I reverted your "edit": for instance, one of your May, 2014, refs said she was the first one who had claimed there are no black holes, however Stephen Hawking said that back in January, 2014. So just to make it clear, not only that you tried to edit wording (though the problem is lack of academic notability), but you also used bogus references. Then you insisted she's a notable scientist of Brian Greene caliber, which is nonsense (she's not even a full professor), and so on. Please stop trying to save an article which has had so many problems for years by a last-minute rephrasing and using bogus refs without adding anything of substance to prove actual academic notability. Quantity doesn't make up for quality. Holybeef (talk) 18:42, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
None of the reasons above is grounds for thwarting a good faith effort to improve the article; if you have an issue with a particular sentence or reference, say so; but reverting an entire revamp is frowned on by the community and may lead to you being blocked.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:45, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of resorting to exhaustive last-minute text edits, bogus refs and threats, all you have to do is prove academic notability. Simple as that. Holybeef (talk) 20:25, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:PROF, with a low h-index, and no other indicators of notability. In addition, the article has a severe case of Wikipuffery, with some serious exaggeration of the novelty of the subject's research. -- 101.117.88.62 (talk) 02:52, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Academic notability is fairly straightforward to establish, and this person fails the test on all accounts. That one ref would seem like an exception that confirms the rule, but even that only (and only) if she was the lead author, which she wasn't: she wasn't even the second-to-lead since the coauthors are listed in alphabetical order so the credit is split evenly with hers being mere 1/4! Besides, three of us found low h so it seems you're doing something wrong imho. Even though h itself is questionable as a measure. Thanks. Holybeef (talk) 23:24, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Prof 7. The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity. This seems to me to be satisfied as she has been quoted in conventional media BBC Newsnight - Radio 4 - Sunday Times Daily Express - Guardian as an academic expert (Laura Mersini-Houghton, an esteemed cosmologist) on this Multiverse stuff. Also the second paper in GS has her as the lead author: Mersini, L., Bastero-Gil, M., & Kanti, P. (2001). Relic dark energy from the trans-Planckian regime. Physical Review D, 64(4), 043508. This is also highly cited (150) and cited by extremely highly cited papers (2000+, 1000+). (Msrasnw (talk) 11:45, 8 July 2014 (UTC))[reply]
"Cited by extremely highly cited papers" is not a valid notability criterion. And 150 citations for a paper is not much -- many minor academics have that much. We would need a substantial h-index, or something like 1,000 citations for a single paper, to pass WP:PROF #1. As to the case for #7, a handful of one-off media quotes does not constitute a substantial impact outside academia. -- 101.117.29.169 (talk) 07:29, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See above. Academic notability has nothing to do with the article format or styling but the person's academic profile. So far, this person fails to meet the academic notability tests. Holybeef (talk) 23:24, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's like saying someone's "half pregnant." Rules are clear and until they are amended so to reflect your "tenure is now so difficult to achieve" Wikipedia:POV, we'll have to go by the rules. Surely you may wish to propose an amendment to the rules and ask for consensus in the usual way, but this isn't the place or time to do it. The two examples you state are a call for their deletion rather: in the former case, according to the intro paragraph, notability is alleged based on the fact the person was "voted as the sexiest woman alive in 1973" (w/o source!) and some (school's internal?) teaching awards. How does that establish academic notability? The latter mentions the person authored books on race and that's it. That's a very questionable notability, to put it mildly! Thanks for pointing at those, I'll get to nominating those two articles too for deletion as soon as I get a chance. Holybeef (talk) 23:24, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Msrasnw suggests a h-index of 15, but that's still below the threshold of notability. Historically, we've drawn the threshold at about 20, or somewhat lower in low-citation fields (which theoretical physics is not). I see no other grounds for passing WP:PROF either. The "associate professor" issue is a red herring: being a tenured professor has never been grounds for passing WP:PROF. Instead, we have the criteria C1 to C9 in that policy, none of which are applicable to the subject. The alternative road to notability is WP:GNG, but that isn't passed either. -- 101.117.108.115 (talk) 09:17, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop pushing the false claim of vandalism. I simply reverted your exhaustive last-minute edit as it seemed like you were trying to blur the real issue before it could be discussed: academic notability. Your hurry is puzzling to put it mildly, especially given that the article was sitting around for years along with numerous tags that made it look like a Christmas tree. So many tags can't mean a consensus to keep, but rather a broader displeasure by various editors over the years, many of whom are obviously unaware of this nomination to delete. That's basically why I insist on leaving the article as-is until the decision is made: so that their "voice" too could be heard. It's useful if anything. Holybeef (talk) 04:46, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
1. The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.--WP:ACADEMIC
7. The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.--WP:ACADEMIC
No indication she has made significant impact in her discipline. The sources are far from reliable, as I showed on an example which claimed in May she was the first one to have claimed there are no black holes, when in fact it was Stephen Hawking who said it in January. Besides, she hasn't made a substantial impact outside academia either: take Brian Greene as your measuring rod for example, he's made such an impact with thousands of references and broad media coverage, compared to her one or two such references. That's what an average academic gets, really. Holybeef (talk) 04:46, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WoS h-index is 8 and it seems that the media pieces above discuss some aspects of her work (with others). Articles like this are fairly routine for academics, especially in the "publicly-relatable" fields (like astronomy, medicine, etc.) I think this person will achieve notability, but it is WP:TOOSOON. Not that it matters to notability, but most of the article is POV-pushing WP:OR.Agricola44 (talk) 18:20, 8 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Hi - did you check WoS for Laura Mersini-Houghton and for Laura Mersini. I think if you do this WoS would add a couple of extra to the index WoS h-index 10. Those of us interested in these things know - 10 is much bigger than 8. I might be wrong - perhaps you could check.:) (Msrasnw (talk) 19:25, 8 July 2014 (UTC))[reply]
Good point. In WoS, the more general search "AUTHOR: (Mersini-Houghton L* OR Mersini L*) Timespan: All years. Indexes: SCI-EXPANDED, SSCI, A&HCI" returns 25 results (all of which appear to be her, not someone else) and an h-index of 10. Most of her early papers are low citation, but she is first author on a PhysRevD paper (2001) that has 112 citations. While I think this is very good, it is also true that this sector of physics is associated with high paper count and high citations. Consequently, this seems to be a very borderline case in my view. I've struck my !vote above and will only leave my contribution here as an informational one. Thanks! Agricola44 (talk) 19:50, 8 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]
h values needs to be used with judgement. There's a lot of difference between someone who publishes 10 routine papers with 10 citations each and someone who publishes 2 papers with 100 citations each and 8 with 10 -- yet h=10 in both cases. Scientists are judged by their best work. Factors to take into consideration also is where the articles are published, and which journals cite them, where they are working, for which of their papers are they senior author (usually this = first or last, depending on subject) how much of their work is independent as contrasted to work done in their training or influenced by their advisors.
True. Unfortunately, it seems that those who vote to keep rely primarily (if not exclusively) on h in order to establish her academic notability. Holybeef (talk) 04:46, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
At a truly first rate university, associate professor promotions go to those sufficiently excellent for their colleagues to feel utterly confident they will attract first rate students and postdocs over the course of their careers. Such people are notable. (I judge first rate by the standards I have seen applied at the two such places I know best, Princeton and Berkeley) . At a good but not top level research university, the qualification is just good enough to continue producing published work. (I know some places of that sort also.) Those people are not usually notable in any real sense.
Agree. Her school is far from being a first rate university so that's one way of measuring notability. Rarely are the media interested in what someone from a second rate school has to say about a topic that is expected to receive broad coverage. Holybeef (talk) 04:46, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
1, There are two major danger signs I watch for at afd discussions. One is an editor trying desperately by all conceivable arguments to show someone notable. The other is an editor trying to attack every "keep" judgement. They both often represent poor judgement or COI or bias. An additional danger sign is editors arguing strenuously either that this is a vote or this is not a vote. Neither is strictly correct. We go by the balance of the strength of the arguments, but the number of experienced people supporting a position is relevant to judging its strength.
2.I'm also very concerned when nominators or others start using unnecessarily emotional language, or denigrating the subject. For one thing, BLP applies to a considerable extent even in discussions. "bordering on the delusional" is unacceptable language here, & my instinctive feeling is anyone who needs to use it may have some COI, such as judging someone notable or not depending on what position the subject takes on a disputed issue. That's not a comment on actual notability, which I need to think about. Sometimes even someone with a coi can be correct.
Thanks but no coi here really: note I said "It all points to turbo POV, bordering on delusional even." It's rather obvious I wasn't referring to the person itself, but to the way in which she was being presented on Wikipedia as well as in cited media that seem to credit her (falsely) with discoveries that are not hers, see above for the example with black holes and Stephen Hawking. Other editors agreed in the above that this is a case of heavy POV. I'd like to add: one I have never encountered before on Wikipedia quite honestly. This should be a straightforward case imho. But it seems that for some reason there's a whole brigade of editors who are trying at any cost to portray this person as a scientist of Brian Greene caliber. Holybeef (talk) 04:46, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I breaking my own rule, by responding again, if viewed that way, your comment violates BLP and slso ]]WP:NPA]] with respect to whoever wrote it.
Sorry to disappoint, no idea what you mean. Perhaps if you brushed your English a bit? Sorry I didn't mean to be rude if your first language wasn't English but say, Albanian... Holybeef (talk) 02:59, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
3 Notability is not the only reason for deletion. Incurable promotionalism is another good reason. When this is challenged, the responsibility of someone supporting the article is to show it is not incurable by fixing it.
4/ My own practice when I nominate an article for deletion is to rely on my argument as I gave it , and sometimes respond once or twice to any important key misunderstandings, but to otherwise let the community decide as it sees best. If people disagree with me, that's what the discussions are for. Anyone who deals with borderline cases as I usually do will inevitably find frequent disagreement. If the community decides against me, it is neither proof that I am stupid, or that everybody else is. The point of discussion is to reach a conclusion, not to win a victory. DGG ( talk ) 19:07, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I really need to. I've been explaining well enough why your approach to this deletion indicates that your views should be treated with skepticism. However, since you ask: .
Keep' Appears to meet the GNG because of the interest taken by reliable semi-populat sources in what is clearly a quite unusual claim. If her work is taken seriously by the astrophysics people, then she would meet WP:PROF also, but that part is still unclear. (she is co-editor of 2 books by Springer, a leading academic publisher, her articles are in good journals, and UNC-CH is a very good research university, tho not a world leader in this field.) The main negative factor is that at least the most important papers that do reference her work just mention it, not taking it as a hypothesis worth detailed refutation ) This is a rather frequent situation, that a hypothesis that may be a little scientific significance is taken seriously by the press, which is always looking for something potentially sensational. The rationale for our using the GNG in such cases is that the public will see these sources and know what it is about, but this needs careful writing to avoid giving the wrong impression of scientific proof. The article will of course need such rewriting, but I do not consider it hopelessly promotional even as it stands. . I imagine everything I say here will be attacked by the nominator, If instead of commenting here I had decided to close, I would have been likely to close non-consensus, because the intensity of the attack polarizes what ought to be a discussion. DGG ( talk ) 19:15, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"If her work is taken seriously" means you're contradicting yourself and renders your "vote" bogus. Being mean is your choice of course, but it has nothing to do with reasonable (arguments-based) discussion. Thanks though, since you've made great points in favor of delete in the above, as well as when explaining your "vote" Holybeef (talk) 23:40, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It seems you do not understand the GNG. Considering notability of anything by the GNG does not take into account the intrinsic merit of the subject. Whether the work is taken seriously by the physics community affects notability by WP:PROF, but not by the GNG, which couldn't care less about such things. Whatever the general public pays attention to is notable, regardless of what scientists think of it. DGG ( talk ) 04:29, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As someone already noticed in the above, she doesn't meet alternative routes to notability, such as the GNG. According to you, more than one editor misunderstood the GNG. So you are here to enlighten us. Oh boy. Read: it takes 1000's of secondary sources in order to make a person notable. Provide the proof, simple as that. If you can't, oh well. Holybeef (talk) 02:59, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On the basis of the discussion above I have changed my vote on this borderline case. Although my change has nothing to do with the conduct of the nominator in this AfD debate, I find this to be a bad faith nomination and more than pointy. The nominator's contribution record is instructive. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:53, 10 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]
You can try make it personal all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that this is an article about a person who doesn't meet any notability criteria whatsoever for the past 8 years since the article was created. Which brings me to the main comment: the durability itself of such an article that consists mostly of heavy POV and blatant lies on the person's "genius" is most revealing however. So it seems we have a case of groupies here who use emotion instead of reason and rules. Can't do anything about that of course, besides stating that such their (your) votes don't count. Either discuss seriously or don't discuss at all. By the way: there's a good old measure of someone's notability before voting delete/keep: read the intro paragraph which, under the current rules on notability, must summarize the reason why a person is considered notable. This individual fails on that count too. So in conclusion, I don't see any significant opposition to delete, where by significant I mean supported by argument in a serious discussion; instead, we have some hand-waving, with plenty of bias, misreading of applicable rules (or stretching them to unbelievable proportions) as well as tricks such as bait-votes that "suddenly" turn to their opposite. Ah those tricks to weaken strong nominations... Holybeef (talk) 02:59, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note on references added to the proposed edit on the article's talk page: the added references are mostly primary. Note however that, when establishing whether someone is or isn't notable, Wikipedia uses secondary sources only. On the other hand, reliable secondary sources do report on this person's failures, like when a 175-people collaboration recently found no evidence of dark flow that this person is basing her work on, and the collaboration even explicitly stated so: "There is no detection of bulk flow". It seems that this person not only isn't notable, but is also dead-wrong about what some here would portray as a sign of genius. Holybeef (talk) 12:15, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question. If the closing admin decides to keep this article, given that there appears to be an anti-Mersini-Houghton POV-warrior here who repeatedly reverts attempts to improve the article, what can be done to prevent future edit-warring? That is, closing the deletion discussion is easy; but is there a way to pervent future edit-warring and vandalism?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:35, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - Articles that are routinely vandalized can have page protection applied, but perusal of the revision history for the article doesn't demonstrate ongoing vandalism. Regarding edit warring, check out the essay WP:BRD for starters. These matters can often be resolved through discussion on the article's talk page. NorthAmerica100008:05, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete. There is nothing in this article that is worthy of inclusion in WP. To be fair I haven't googled so I can't guarantee there isn't something out there.Szzuk (talk) 22:01, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've googled now and done a little research so I'm striking through part of my earlier comment. Now I think this article should be deleted and in addition the essay that he wrote which also has a page on WP should also be deleted. A catchphrase in a stuffy academic text doesn't confer notability. Szzuk (talk) 19:14, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Whether or not there's significant coverage of the concept in reliable sources, there's no sign of any significant coverage of him as required to meet Wikipedia:Notability (people), so I see no justification for a separate page on him in addition to the page on the concept. Qwfp (talk) 19:23, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete; fails to meet WP:NASTRO. Not visible to the naked eye, no significant coverage in studies, and not in a catalogue of note. A small note in the article about the chant may be useful, but not a separate article. StringTheory11 (t • c) 19:39, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
According to WP:NASTCRIT #3, there's plenty of notability in international media coverage, making it culturally significant. If you haven't looked at the article lately, I invite you to do so. I expanded it and added sources. USchick (talk) 20:20, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a mention. Seven articles are cited where the entire article is about the planet and its new name. Six of the articles mention it in the title. Five countries are reporting about it. USchick (talk) 21:08, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is ok, but they only mention the unofficial name in relation to the song, nothing else. Btw it would be good to know for the closing admin that, judging from your talk page, you are a strong partisan supporter.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:16, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Lol, what exactly is a "partisan supporter"? Are your trying to say I'm a supporter of astronomy? Well, I like watching the stars, but that's about it. The star was not notable at all until it was named. The new name is what makes it notable. In five different countries. So far. It just got named, so other countries may become interested. Give it time. USchick (talk) 21:25, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The star is present in the catalog nonprofit international organization "White Dwarf Research Corporation", and its number fixes the Kepler Input Catalog. --Jeromjerom (talk) 13:21, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The WDRC is not even a catalogue, and even if it were, it would certainly not be considered notable. The KIC catalogue is certainly not a notable catalogue, considering it consists of stars that might have a possibility of having planets, not even stars that just have a possibility. StringTheory11 (t • c) 04:51, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There are editors who know the standards for notability of stars much better than I, and the closing admin should pay attention closely to their opinions over all others. Of course the star can be mentioned at Putin khuilo! but that meme doesn't mean we need multiple articles on that; indeed readers are benefited by one comprehensive article on the meme.--Milowent • hasspoken13:31, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep not a particular notable star but it got some notoriety due to its controversial naming that was covered by many sources. Do not see any reasons to remove the article Alex Bakharev (talk) 07:42, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clearly fails our established notability criteria for astronomical objects. Our guideline says that notoriety gained by a naming convention only means that the information could reside in an article about the name/song/person/whatever. In this case, information about the star may be included in Putin khuilo!. The sources referenced say that the naming "organization" is a non-profit that allows individuals to name a star for $10. It's not official, and certainly won't be accepted by any professional astronomers or even amateur catalogues. WP:NASTRO is pretty clear about this. Merge the info into the song article, but delete this one. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 20:43, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is the meme famous for naming a star or the star famous for starting a meme? It's clearly the former, hence why there's an article about the meme and shouldn't be one about the star. Sailsbystars (talk) 17:59, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
A three-sentence unreferenced stub created yesterday about the alleged first known victim of HIV/AIDS—contradicting Wikipedia's other articles on the subject. All mentions of him on Wikipedia were inserted by the same user, Genesis is so awesome, whose other edits do not look promising.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete. Didn't find anything on google about them, a peruvian band of the same name is on google but barely notable in my opinion. Szzuk (talk) 22:07, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Promotional article for advertising advice organization. Content consists of a list of their markets, which seems to include everything possible. Awards are minor or local or both. "Fastest growing" almost always implies "not yet notable", for it's much easier to grow rapidly when you're very small. (as is this: 94 employees) , The Huffington Post article is a press release, at the bottom it says: "Please contact [the author] to have your story told on these pages. " ZD net article in this case seems to be a press release also: the President of the company told it to the "reporter" at a resort, and he printed it. The others are the sort of local business journals that publishes anything from a local business/.
I find it incredible that this was actually accepted from afc. The least that can be expected of it is to screen out advertising. DGG ( talk ) 17:29, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DGG's good analysis. Only the first sentence in the entire article contains anything that describes why the company should be mentioned in an encyclopedia, and that's not enough to keep an article. The best source I could find that looked independent was this Austin Business Journal article on computer drift, that relegates it to a passing mention via a quotation from its founder. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)16:19, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
While I am not convinced the company is notable (nor am I convinced it is non-notable), I do not agree with the harsh assessment of the AfC reviewer. The article doesn't read like an ad and the sources are credible at first glance. AfC gets plenty of actual ads and almost always does a fine job of filtering those out. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:04, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That is a fair comment, and while I sometimes like to improved passed AfC submissions to Did you know? standard, no AfC reviewer is obliged to do anything other than pass it if they are certain the article does not meet any criteria set out in the deletion policy. A article with a slanted POV but still notable may still pass. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)16:18, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The only notability Skanda Vale presents is in the form of the controversy that ensued the termination of Shambo the Bull, an inhabitant of the temple. Any references mentioning Skanda Vale mostly pertain to the death of Shambo, not any of the practice that takes place there or to the temple itself. Thus, it should be deleted by rule of WP:ONEEVENT. To add on, the article (before I got to it) was previously just a bunch of advertising and nonsense. Flipandflopped(Discuss, Contribs)04:29, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
No evidence of encyclopedic notability. Subject appears to fail WP:NALBUM. Cited sources are trivial. A Google did not yield anything that rings the notability bell. PROD was removed by article author. Subsequent discussion on the author's talk page did not alleviate my concerns about notability. However it is possible that additional sources may exist in Polish. I am open to reconsideration if enough RS coverage can be found. Ad Orientem (talk) 15:33, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What other sources do you want? The sources include AllMusic, their own website, Spirit of Metal and Metal-Archives. If the band has its own article on Wikipedia, then shouldn't albums as well? I don't understand. TheSickBehemoth (talk) 16:14, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Right now the sourcing on the article is mediocre at best. Obviously the metal-archives reference will have to go (nowhere near a reliable source; see WP:ALBUM/SOURCES). The Spirit of Metal reference also looks rather dubious; I wouldn't use it myself. As I don't speak Polish, I have no opinion on those two sites; can they be shown to pass WP:RS? The Allmusic reference doesn't have a review, which is usually needed to include it as a reference. Really, I'm not seeing anything here establishing the album's notability. I suggested to User:TheSickBehemoth that they take a look through WP:ALBUM/SOURCES and try to find more that actually establish the album's notability. I would ask any potential closing admin to give this user a couple of days to do this before closing and deleting/keeping. However, if nothing can be found in a reasonable amount of time, I would agree with deleting it (and maybe moving it to TSB's userspace to be worked on there). MrMoustacheMM (talk) 01:29, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As the nom I have no objection to relisting the AfD for a week if the article creator would like a little time to work on it. I also have no objection to userfying the article if there is legitimate reason to believe there might be some RS sources, perhaps in Polish that just aren't popping up right now. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:37, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Clear Merge to the band page per WP:ALBUM in its current form. Never charted, no significant journalistic coverage. No need to crystal ball this. Delete it and if the coverage improves, the article will be recreated. But as it stands not worth its own article. SPACKlick (talk) 09:10, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Minor software library of dubious notability. The three given references are cited 5, 8 and 13 times according to GScholar. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 09:22, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Three sources, all written by Comprimato's author. As WP:CORPDEPTH requires the sources to be independent of the subject, that means there are zero sources. In searching, I'm not finding much of anything beyond verifying that it exists. --— Rhododendritestalk | 15:11, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You should be able to find INTOPIX is using Comprimato and NVIDIA is republishing their anouncements. In Academia world it is normal that researchers describe their own findings or work. Other way to confirm the existence is to ask for a demo - it would be great if someone else from the community should verify the existence and any independent view is helpfull. Regarding minority: other JPEG2000 libraries have their records at Wikipedia - check at JPEG 2000. Mkrsek (hm?) 18:50, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But republishing their announcements and the link to a press release are both just more primary sources. In the academic world it is indeed normal for researchers to describe their own work, but as an encyclopedia there have to be criteria for inclusion (otherwise every single researcher's project would have an article). The criteria is based on other people writing about the project. Wikipedia does not itself dictate what is important; it defers to what other people have considered to be important. --— Rhododendritestalk | 19:25, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thats why I've included INTOPIX view. This is (by my understanding) independent source. I'm not sure if joint press release is primary source (as they need to convince others to issue joint information.Mkrsek (hm?) 20:35, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
INTOPIX is primary. Reliable secondary sources are third-party publications with editorial independence, not organizations that use other organizations' products. Those can be cited for their use of a product, but not to establish its notability. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 21:23, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I dug up the number of citations for the cited papers exactly to establish these sources as primary; secondary sources need not be cited to prevent deletion, but a large number of citations at least establishes notability. Press released are also primary sources. Similar libraries having WP pages is an instance of WP:OTHER, which is to be avoided unless those other articles have been nominated for AfD as well so they can count as precedence. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 19:51, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I got your point. Just following common sense. Expecting the Digital Encyclopedia has ambitions to fully describe specific topic. Mkrsek (hm?) 20:50, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete—Small company in a niche market, so it's not surprising that third-party, independent sources are lacking. But absent that, we don't have the raw material for an article. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 06:25, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Article about non-notable books (failing WP:NBOOK) in the Star Wars universe. The article includes uncited quites and is mainly a list of the tables of contents of books in the series. Mikeblas (talk) 14:21, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. More than two weeks, and still no one's willing to argue for the article's retention. Deor (talk) 22:38, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Mostly self-referenced or unsourced, basically promotional. None of the sources cited give the charity itself any significant coverage, and I can't find any elsewhere. The fact that the founder appears frequently on TV talking about kindness goes to his notability, not that of this organization. Revent (talk) 21:04, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Not notable, no significant coverage. This IRCd in particular is merely a branch of charybdis, which doesn't have its own article, and it's only a custom branch used by the freenode network. Also, the creator created it because several other pages link to it, but that has no bearing on its notability. Jasper Deng(talk)21:01, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
NN primary school. We don't generally provide stand-alone articles for such schools, absent a level of coverage not present here. Epeefleche (talk) 16:40, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a redirect would keep a poorly named redirect. The ", Ravenswell" part is unnecessary so keeping a poorly disambiguated redirect would be silly! IMHO. Apart from that it is a non-notable primary, which doesn't need or deserve an article on WP. Atlas-maker (talk) 05:42, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Promotional article for self published book -- the book is not even in WorldCat. The huffington post article is merely a blog entry, without apparent editorial control. DGG ( talk ) 16:10, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I searched, but I couldn't find enough sourcing to show that this book merits an article at this point in time. It received a review from the SLJ, but that's not enough to keep an article. Even if we were to all agree to use the HuffPo article as a RS, we still wouldn't have enough to show this passes WP:NBOOK. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)03:53, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Subject does not appear to meet WP:BIO notability criteria. Coverage in secondary sources is minimal. Perhaps this should be merged into RefugePoint, the organization he co-founded. PinkBull18:47, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Policy based consensus shows that this article has an original research and reliable sources issue that haven't been fixed during the course of this debate. The keep commentators mostly ignored those valid concerns with "it's encyclopedic" comments with little or no policy based rationales behind them. Secretaccount01:00, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence that this is really a notable intersection of topics. No sign of RS dealing in depth with this intersection. Dweller (talk) 16:01, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While the individual instances are interesting by themselves, there is no indication that "chess-related deaths" is a notable topic per se. Holdek (talk) 18:24, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't quite understand that point - a number of different sources talk about the topic and they're interesting and relevant and valid sources, so what isn't notable? - 23:29, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
This article is list of chess-related deaths, not history of or concept of chess-related deaths. There's no original research involved. (Oops; if you forget to types the fourth tilde, it's just date/time, not signature.) - DavidWBrooks (talk) 12:29, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - chess related deaths are unfortunately a distinct phenomenon. Not merely anecdotal as suggested. Eg USSR banning chess-playing in space clearly relates to a recognition of the problem of chess related violence. --Zymurgy (talk) 06:30, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have evidence of reliable sources discussing the phenomenon of chess-related deaths, as opposed to individual occurrences. --Dweller (talk) 13:04, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Encyclopedic list, about a well known topic (Chess) that has had major influences in history and culture, which the article helps elaborate upon. Bobcats2b (talk) 16:27, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Bob, no-one is disputing that chess is notable. Let me give you an analogy. You wouldn't expect to find an article on "chess and yoghurt", even though there have notable incidents in the chess world to do with yoghurt (notably during the Cold War). But chess and yoghurt is not a notable intersection, as people haven't discussed the combination of topics in reliable sources, merely individual incidents that combine them. On the other hand, chess and the Cold War would be a notable intersection. Have I explained the difference? --Dweller (talk) 20:57, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Remember, this article is titled list of ... - If there were a dozen novels in which yoghurt and chess were linked, and several historical incidents in which they were linked (Elmer Frobnitz invented Greek yoghurt to distract himself from the pain of losing a chess game to his younger brother) then, yes List of chess-related yoghurt incidents or maybe List of yoghurt-related chess incidents would, indeed, be a legitimate article - as is this. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 21:16, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
DavidWBrooks, that's not my understanding of notability for lists. If you had a couple of newspaper articles remarking on chess-related yoghurt incidents as a phenomenon, that's notable. In the absence of WP:RS discussing the class (rather than single incidents), we can't establish notability. Coming at the problem from bibliographical articles: consider a mid-rank mathematician who has her own wikipedia article. She has written several papers, yet unless someone has published a bibliography in a reliable source (e.g., "collected works" edition or biography), we can't have a standalone bibliography article for her. If I'm wrong, please cite chapter and verse, as this will seriously broaden the scope of the bibliography articles I can write. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 21:30, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A biography of a particular person is not a list of a type of person, that's what is different. List articles have always bothered some people in wikipedia who find them un-encyclopedic (check the AFD debates - 7 of them! - for list of unusual deaths if you want a real example) but they have been part of this weird little experience for more than the 10 years I've been fiddling with it. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 00:30, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not Elmer Frobnitz, in fact, but possibly Viktor Korchnoi: "When Karpov's team sent him a bilberry yogurt during a game without any request for one by Karpov, the Korchnoi team protested, claiming it could be some kind of code (such as whether Korchnoi was dead equal or slightly advantageous)." Martinevans123 (talk) 15:24, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete While the anecdotes themselves may occur in reliable sources (and the Weekly World News, too!) the phenomenon itself has not received sufficient coverage to warrant an article. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 17:58, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Random trivia, only loosely connected. Using Bill Wall as a source in an attempt to justify the article really is clutching at straws - he's a self-published internet writer (most of it came from his geocities page originally). He is notoriously unreliable, repeating anecdotes as facts; he evidently subscribes to the philosophy "if the legend is more entertaining than the truth, print the legend". MaxBrowne (talk) 05:33, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the classic "other stuff exists". That article made me laugh, it's practically a satire of wikipedia, even has a "popular culture" section. Does anyone really think toilet-related deaths are a distinct phenomenon? MaxBrowne (talk) 12:57, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tempted to keep - the juxtaposition of a danger-sport and an activity such as chess has been noted in several blogs, sadly no books that I can see. It gets a fair few views per day. I suspct there will be something out there. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 21:28, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - or at worst perhaps merge into chess article and condense somewhat. No need to get all delete-happy over a list that isn't found in dead tree encyclopedias. Bryce (talk) 05:00, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. From the introduction: "The reliability of many of these anecdotes is suspect, but some appear to be based on fact": Uh-oh. Lot of nonsense frankly; In one story an inmate is killing another and according to one story they were discussing chess at some point before the killing; this is frankly too dumb for an encyclopedia; the Wikipedia account also seems to be based directly on the court papers, so it's original resource if no secondary sources are provided. And even with a secondary source, it would in fact be original research to call this "chess-related"; chess is surely not the cause of death. Iselilja (talk) 19:13, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm going with "delete" on this one. Based on the article content, I really think it's worth writing about the subject, but until the subject has been written about somewhere else, this is essentially WP:SYNTH. Good and fascinating article, but Wikipedia is not the forum for it. Yes, it has plenty of references for each of the incidents described in the article, but there is no indication (surprisingly,to me) that the intersection of chess and death (especially killing over it), which is the subject of the article, has been the subject of any reliable published sources.
I would be most happy if someone could prove me wrong and unearth such sources, because I really do like the article, and wish it could remain. But there are sound reasons why Wikipedia is a repository of information already published elsewhere, and summarized here, rather than as an original publisher of information particular editors find worth publishing.
Delete - As others have stated above, very few of the sources actually discuss the phenomenon of "chess related deaths" as a whole. Rather, most of the sources merely support the individual anecdotes. Taking these and trying to tie them all together as a unified list, without the sources to back the concept as a whole up, reeks of synthesis. The few that do talk about deaths of multiple chess players do not seem to be from reliable sources, and several of the sources have nothing to do with the concept at all, and are instead being used to discuss a tangentially related math problem. In addition, a large portion of the article is nothing but unsourced trivia, which would need to be removed regardless of whether the article is kept or not. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 22:51, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by an IP without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:13, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Will become a large part of Inverness squad over the next few months so deserves a page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.174.138.8 (talk • contribs)
Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. Being part of a squad in an FPL does not matter if the person has not played. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements. Can be recreated if the individual passes any guideline in the future. Fenix down (talk) 14:39, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Contested PROD. PROD concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested based on his Europa League appearance. However, this is was in a qualifying match, meaning it does not confer notability. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:46, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Use translator...If someone was read the ref you will notice this:
"В сдружението членуват български футболни клубове с професионален статут от „А” и двете „Б” групи (понастоящем броят им е 39)." - "In association members Bulgarian football clubs with professional status of "A" and two "B" group (now the number is 39)." K.belev (talk) 23:00, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing significant to add to the above, clearly never played fully pro, which clearly doesn't meet WP:NFOOTY, end of discussion, surely? SPACKlick (talk) 09:12, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Not notable. Pelican State Beach seems to exist but that's all we can really say about it. Also, this page is the locus of disruption of an artist who has been disrupting Wikipedia for 3 years. —Ryūlóng (琉竜) 14:14, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As a legitimate California state park and a significant named place, I don't see why this should be deleted. It is notable as the northern terminus of the California Coastal Trail and the northernmost beach in the state; in addition to the authoritative official website already cited, it is covered as such in multiple sources such as [40][41][42][43][44][45][46] etc. --Arxiloxos (talk) 21:58, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Not only a legitimate California State Beach, but it has received significant coverage from reliable secondary sources easily demonstrating passing WP:GNG.[47][48][49] If we were to delete articles because vandals have disrupted them, we'd have to delete just about every major article in WP.--Oakshade (talk) 23:26, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Comment (Note - I am the original editor, plus I happen to know David Penn at an aquaintence level. Right, that's the COI out of the way, let's get on with the comments LOL!) He has appeared on National television (major channels, like BBC2 and ITV1) in several programmes, both on screen and as consultant. He was also a Live finalist on Britain's Got Talent. He has won major magic competitions, not just minor club-level ones. Here is a news item - not a major publication, but it does at least verify some of the information in the article: [50]Stephen!Coming...11:38, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nice! Add it to the article and expand it using it. I'm not actually questioning the guy's notability, so once it's added I'll withdraw it.--Launchballer11:53, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Unfortunately, REFLINKS doesn't work on this terminal here; it has a tendancy to convert random ASCII characters (generally square brackets) into a different form. Rather a good magic trick if you can do it, but not very helpful on Wikipedia. Would you mind converting the reference into something a bit more usable, please? Stephen!Coming...13:01, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Non notable politician, only mayor of a small town at present. Not yet elected to national office. I believe this article has been created by subject or someone witha close connection: they have twice removed a COI tag from the article. TheLongTone (talk) 11:28, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Non notable, only history of life is mentioned like an essay. No any claim of notability in political career also. No independent source found for that person. Mentioned sources like [51] , [52] are closely related to the subject, and there is also COI. Fails WP:NPOLA.Minkowiski _Lets t@lk14:20, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We do not keep articles about unelected candidates pending the election results; a person doesn't get to have a Wikipedia article until they've already passed a notability rule. Bearcat (talk) 22:51, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Unelected candidates for office do not qualify for Wikipedia articles just for being candidates, smalltown mayors (15K) do not qualify for Wikipedia articles just for being mayors, and no politician at any level of government — not even the president of the entire United States — is entitled to keep an article that relies on primary sources for referencing. No prejudice against recreation in November if he wins the election, but he's not entitled to keep one in the meantime just because his name is on a ballot. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 22:51, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete If we could find significant coverage of Wallace's actions as gaining national notice at the time, that would be enough. However even well researched obituaries are rarely enough on their own.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:51, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being a mayor of a small town is not a substantive claim of notability per WP:POLITICIAN, this article makes no strong claim that he's in any meaningful way more notable than the norm for that role, and while an obituary would be valid for verification of some biographical details after notability had been covered off by better sourcing, it's not good enough to be an article's only source. Bearcat (talk) 22:59, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
OK, it appears we have a "Bicholim Conflict" situation here. Article has been around for almost five years now, it has a picture and all. Look at all those references and external links, etc. Except not a single one of the references and external links gives any support at all to the existence of this player/referee. This appears to be nothing else but a complete hoax. Shirt58 (talk) 09:54, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you look in the history of the article, he claimed to have played for the MetroStars of MLS, which is a complete lie (all-time roster here). He also claimed to play for Argentina at the U-16 World Cup in 1985. (He did not: roster here). He even edited this page to claim to have scored a goal. He inserted references in other pages as well (here for instance). 71.187.194.248 (talk) 12:07, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete per still failing WP:NF. Expanding the article's name contrary to WP:NCF does not suddenly make it notable in the lack of significant coverage. If author wishes it in his sandbox as it is improved, and with a caution toward WP:COI, fine... but it does not belong in article space, yet. If User:MrinmoyGogoi123 (same name as director) can provide us with the coverage I am unable to find and I would gladly reconsider. Schmidt, Michael Q.18:58, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a student film would have to be really extremely extraordinary in some way to be considered encyclopedically notable. I don't see any indication that this one is. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind19:09, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Fails WP:GNG. (I must confess to coming here from what is possibly the most cringeworthy advert on television - of course a pig fucking gives you bacon!) Launchballer08:48, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That'll teach me not to check the history first. Article was voted to be kept 'without prejudice' just over two months ago. Considering withdrawal.--Launchballer08:50, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I've given it some thought, removed two sections under WP:CRUFT and fixed the thumbnail, and I am probably going to go through with this. Without the unsourced WP:PLOT section, the article looks like this.--Launchballer09:40, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not a page I'd be proud of, but it meets the GNG with reviews from standard game review sites: Gamezebo, Pocket Gamer, and CNET. There is also plenty of commentary already linked by Odie in the previous AfD. As for the article's state, it has no impact on the notability, especially as it doesn't use the multiple reliable articles already linked. Withdrawal recommended, as I can't see this going another way, despite the bacon. czar ♔16:31, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep. Is this some sort of joke? This is the 'legendary' producer who has been credited with laying the foundation for modern remixing ([53]), who co-wrote and produced Madonna's no. 1 single "Vogue" ([54]), as well as producing her Erotica album ([55]). There's no lack of coverage of him, e.g. [56], [57], [58], [59], [60], and these are just from the first two pages of GBooks results. --Michig (talk) 16:26, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Article about an organization which pretty comprehensively fails both WP:ORG and WP:GNG. This article was started on 24 September 2007 by a user with the same username as the founder (Molly Blackburn)— 2 months after its founding. Observe also this blog post. The WP article detailed grandiose plans [61] (section now removed), but their activities even then were centered around raising money in Cambridge (UK) for projects in India which never materialized. LAI is mentioned in this October 2008 article in The New Internationalist, but by that time the founder defined their scope as setting up various blogs, e.g. Break the Silence, and a "resource" website. The last post on the Break the Silence blog was in October 2007. The last post on their main blog was in February 2008. Their main website is long defunct. Their first project was supposed to be in Pune. Note that in this 2014 article in the Pune Mirror discussing lesbian collectives and activism in the city, there is no mention whatsoever of LAI. I can find no mention of it anywhere in the Indian press—both mainstream and LGBT. Likewise no mention of either the organization or its founder in either of the following sources despite them being published 6–7 years after LAI was founded:
Sharma, Alankaar and Das, Arpita (2013) "India: From Tensions to Transformation" in Johnson, Paternotte, and Tremblay (eds.), The Lesbian and Gay Movement and the State: Comparative Insights into a Transformed Relationship, pp. 89–102. Ashgate Publishing
The brief mention in The New Internationalist and one interview with the founder in the local Cambridge newspaper (both in 2008) do not amount to significant, in-depth coverage or evidence of significant impact of this organization. In fact, it appears to have never got past the planning/publicity stage. Voceditenore (talk) 07:50, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't even think that there is any such association exist in India. This article is completely unsourced and relies on non-trust able sources such as Blogspot and social media. CutestPenguin {talk • contribs}15:44, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The novels never existed in print form, they were online only. They are no longer available online (except for purchase from a source in Poland). The article itself notes "As of Fall 2012, the Cronnex novels had virtually vanished from the web for unknown reasons; the former Cronnex website had changed into an ad-page. " The link they give at the end to download the works from gives a 404 error. The novels are unknown to Abebooks, WorldCat, bookfinder.com, Google Books, and isfdb.com. There are discussions about the works on Goodreads, but there are apparently no published sources that discuss the work, as would be required by WP:BK (none known to JSTOR or Google Books). Chaveyd (talk) 07:12, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's just no coverage to show that this book series is ultimately notable enough for an entry. I'm going to nominate it as a speedy, although it could probably slightly qualify under WP:A7 since the books were published as web content. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)09:02, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
NN 145,000 square ft mall. In addition to it not being notable, the consensus, as reflected in the discussion at "Common Outcomes; Malls", is that we don't generally retain stand-alone articles of malls below 500K sq. ft. (some editors believe the cutoff is a higher square footage). – which this is clearly below. Epeefleche (talk) 23:59, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The theory of WP:OUTCOMES is that we can presume the wp:notability of larger malls, based on a history at AfD that WP:GNG-sources can generally be found. Turning this around to argue that we can presume the non-notability of "smaller" malls is not a policy-based argument. Unscintillating (talk) 14:56, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As to Outcomes, of course it is used in common consensus practice to influence AfD !votes for deleting stand-alone articles ... see, for example, how Outcomes is used in the AfD discussions here. It is not used, as you assert -- only to influence a keep !vote, but never to influence a delete !vote.
You can always assume that I've done a wp:before search when I nominate an article, in accord with the strictures of wp:before. No need to ask. And I'm not sure why you're asking the same question of all four editors at this AfD who !voted Delete (though you didn't pose it to the lone editor !voting Keep, so I'm guessing the exercise is not just so that you can learn from others how to improve your ref-searching skills) -- I agree with the comment of RoySmith below that "If you know of some real references which establish notability, please supply them. But just tossing out random, "here, try this and see what you can get" links is not useful." Given that your addition to the article just now was to a local community paper with a circulation of 1,898, which of course does not count towards notability, I'm wondering if you also have failed to find references that establish notability after a search, and are just asking each editor this question for some other reason that is difficult to imagine. Epeefleche (talk) 17:55, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Some sources have been added to the article on the mall's history to add to its notability as one of Nanaimo's first indoor malls. More sources, including newspaper articles on the mall (not all of which would be available online, but can still be used), can also be located to add to the article. Creativity-II (talk) 10:11, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Which of those refs do you believe provide substantial non-local RS evidence of notability? Attention solely from local media (Nanaimo Daily News; 5,394 circulation), or media of limited interest and circulation (wallandceiling.ca), or directories (mallsindex.com), is not an indication of notability. Also, fyi – Nanaimo, while it admittedly is the "Bathtub Racing Capital of the World," has a population of 83,810. Epeefleche (talk) 14:33, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Outside the Daily News, all of them. Just because you don't think any of those refs count toward notability and you see fit to diminish or minimize their usefulness does not mean they don't. Creativity-II (talk) 03:34, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a question of my personal views. It's a question of wp notability rules. As to the refs:
www.mallsindex.flotilia.com/item3960 – this is a non-RS directory. Directories don't count towards notability. And non-RSs don't count towards notability. See wp:N.
Turning Inside Out: Port Place Mall In Nanaimo, BC – this is in "wallandceiling.ca", which strives to serve the "wall and ceiling industry" in Canada. No indicia of this being an RS. And in any event, media of limited interest and circulation are not indications of notability.
Delete Non-notable mall; no coverage outside of its hometown newspaper. Could be redirected to Nanaimo, but it isn't mentioned there and I don't see a good place in the article to mention it. --MelanieN (talk) 23:48, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's two possible redirect targets. One would be List of shopping malls in Canada, as I suggested elsewhere in this AfD. Another would be Nanaimo as suggested above. It's not clear to me which is the better choice. If I search for a mall by name, am I likely to be more interested in malls in general, or in the city where this particular mall exists? I imagine for different people, the answer will be different. Which leaves me unsure which is the better target. -- RoySmith(talk)14:00, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
I tend to mainly use Google, and everything in it (Images, Books, News etc), Sometimes others find things I don't and sometimes I find things others don't, –Davey2010 • (talk)15:53, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[63] niche market industry publication ("Serving Canada's wall and ceiling industry"). Talks about the mall from the point of view of a construction project with difficult logistics, which does nothing to establish the notability of the mall itself.
Did you do the minimal searches advised by WP:BEFORE D1? Did you repeat this search with the previous name? What WP:ATD alternatives to deletion did you consider? Unscintillating (talk) 14:56, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what your point is. Are you saying that you know of some citation which would show notability?
news -- Gives me, Your search - "Harbour Park Mall" - did not match any news results. (and a link to our own article).
newspapers -- Gives me 16 results. I read every one of them. They are all either advertisements, or short articles which mention this mall in passing and in no way establish notability.
books -- the vast majority of these are travel guide books (i.e. indiscriminate sources). The first hit, Harbour City: Nanaimo in Transition, 1920-1967 actually got me excited that there might be something useful there, but unfortunately, the link is broken (Google says, 404. That’s an error. The requested URL /books?id=4woJAo-Ke_UC&pg=PA20&dq=%22Harbour+Park+Mall%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=E7mlU93rIpCTyATIu4LwBA&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA was not found on this server. That’s all we know.. So I am unable to really evaluate that.
scholar -- one hit, but a false match.
JSTOR -- "No results found".
If you know of some real references which establish notability, please supply them. But just tossing out random, "here, try this and see what you can get" links is not useful.
As we have discussed on your talk page, your definition of WP:GNG (I guess that is what you meant by "real references") is a personal definition. In an above comment, you've used the word "trivial" unlike how it is defined at WP:GNG. Anyway, thanks for reporting what you found on that template. Unscintillating (talk) 00:54, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Here is the Google books snippet from BC Business, Volume 17, Issues 8-12, Pacific Rim Publications, 1989, "In the city's downtown, the Harbour Park Mall has been revitalized by the arrival of London Drugs — the first appearance of this major chain on the Island, north of Victoria. The Mall, owned by the Bon Street Group, is being enhanced by ..." This material is non-trivial (as defined at WP:GNG), and supports WP:GNG-type notability for the topic. Unscintillating (talk) 00:54, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment[67] reports, "Time Magazine has reported that Nanaimo has more square meters of retail space per capita than any other city in North America!". This reference webpage supports the idea that shopping centres in Nanaimo are wp:notable as a group. Unscintillating (talk) 00:54, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I should not have called it a "reference". I tried to find the Time reference without success. What I found instead was that Time reported that Nanaimo has become known for its coverage by Google Earth, such that every piece of property is linked, you can watch fire trucks move in real time, and the history of the movements of public grass-mowing equipment is tracked with GPS linked to Google.
As for the point at hand, which is that Nanaimo shopping centers appear to be by themselves wp:notable, how about [68] which is a government study done for Parksville, British Columbia, a city to the North of Nanaimo, which states, ""Sometimes known as the Mecca for island shopping, Nanaimo has 4 major shopping centers; Country Club Centre, Port Place Shopping Centre, Rutherford Mall, and Woodgrove Center. The City of Nanaimo has 5.5 million square feet of retail and service space..." (And note the WP:N attention describing Port Place as a "major" centre.) If you want more sources that group the malls, [69]. Unscintillating (talk) 17:34, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment about WP:GNG WP:GNG is the "general notability guideline". WP:GNG notability can be determined using local sources. WP:GNG notability requires significant (not substantial) coverage that is non-trivial, where trivial is a low bar that excludes things like phone book entries. Non-trivial coverage "need not be the main topic of the source material." In the general theory of WP:GNG as discussed at WT:GNG, two "good" sources are required. Unscintillating (talk) 13:39, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment about WP:N The basic theory of WP:N is found in the nutshell. wp:notability means that the topic has attracted the attention of the world at large over a period of time. In addition to "attracts attention", the keyword in WP:N is "evidence". There are various forms of evidence, but evidence is not restricted to the material that supports WP:GNG. In addition, WP:N is a guideline regarding whether a topic merits a standalone article...it is not a content or a deletion policy. Unscintillating (talk) 13:39, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Google books for "Harbour Park Mall" shows repeated references to the topic as a point of reference.
As for WP:N, the topic is wp:notable; satisfying WP:GNG with full-length articles that discuss the topic directly and in detail from a local newspaper and a regional trade journal, with additional WP:GNG WP:RS material found in an article from a newspaper in a nearby town and a BC business journal; with additional (non-WP:GNG) wp:notability for the attention the topic has attracted as a venue; with additional worthiness for inclusion in the encyclopedia as a point of reference, which falls into the gazetteer.
Unlike Vasundhara Metro Mall, which had barely been built, this topic has been around since 1952, so WP:NTEMP comes into consideration.
References show that a shopping centre north of town has more than 700,000 sqft of retail space, and that there are at least four shopping centres in town. The fact that we don't have articles on those other shopping centres is not a reason to exclude the material here. We need to appreciate our content contributors, and they should be free to merge this topic to the city article or expand the current article to include other shopping districts, without AfD specialists supervising. Unscintillating (talk) 13:39, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Here are two non-local sources, one a national magazine, and one a newspaper internationally located in Everett, WA. Neither is of great WP:GNG weight, but show the topic receiving attention from the world at large as per the nutshell of WP:N. One is from a defunct Toronto-published magazine, Saturday Night (magazine), that draws attention to two 8-foot concrete salmon at Harbour Park Mall, and was found on an EBSCO database, MasterFILE Premier. The second was found on nl.newsbank.com, and the source curiously references both Harbour Park Mall and Port Place Shopping Centre.
Whyte, Colin (1999). "Down Town". Saturday Night. Retrieved 2014-06-24. There are days, though, when you walk past the salmon fountain down at Harbour Park Mall, with its two eight-foot concrete salmon arranged head-to-tail and shivering in mid-flight...[soap]...make mountains of bubbles...and you think people should see this. 114.4:31, MasterFILE Premier.
Frause, Sue (April 7, 2007). Daily Herald. Everett, WA. 'Where can I find Nanaimo bars?' The friendly clerk directed me to...in Port Place Shopping Centre, about a 10-minute walk away. The bars were lying in state in a glass case...{{cite news}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
Delete — for one, WP:OUTCOMES isn't a policy or guideline, so it's not an accurate reflection of broad consensus to apply to AFD anyway. However, the general notability guideline (GNG)—a guideline that is a reflection of consensus—does, at the very least, require significant (in-depth) coverage of the topic. GNG is admittedly subjective to a degree, but as RoySmith points out, the mentions in the sources given either aren't substantial (i.e., coverage is merely incidental to some other subject) or fail other portions of GNG's source requirements / merely prove existence. --slakr\ talk /02:15, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To the extent that your !vote argues from "substantial" coverage, this is not an argument from WP:GNG. As I said above, WP:GNG notability requires significant (not substantial) coverage that is non-trivial, where trivial is a low bar that excludes things like phone book entries. Non-trivial coverage "need not be the main topic of the source material." What Unscintillating (talk) 02:51, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding your reference to "in-depth", this term does not appear in WP:GNG. "Depth of coverage" does, but is a different concept. What WP:GNG says is, " 'Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail". What matters is not the "in-depthness"; but, as per the WP:N nutshell, if the topic has attracted the attention of the world at large over a period of time. Unscintillating (talk) 02:51, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is also some coverage of the mall in this articleWebCite (January 26, 2012) from the Nanaimo News Bulletin:
Water gushed onto Front Street shortly after noon when a drill crew accidentally bored into a water main in the Port Place Shopping Centre parking lot.
...
Water flooded Front Street between Promenade Drive and Museum Way and undermined sections of the Port Place Shopping Centre parking lot, as well as the sidewalk on the south side of Front Street, as it cascaded into the downtown Boat Basin.
...
Drill crews have worked at Port Place Shopping Centre since last summer as part of First Capital Realty's efforts to deal with dry cleaning fluid contamination discovered in the soil.
This articleWebCite (September 26, 2008) from the Nanaimo News Bulletin says:
And a little further south, Port Place Shopping Centre's owners have big plans to redevelop into a mixed commercial-residential site, possibly including a highrise and townhomes, with the timing coinciding with Great Canadian Gaming Corporation's $30-million redevelopment of its casino.
...
Port Place Shopping Centre's owners envision it becoming much like the Whistler Village, albeit on a smaller scale, where people can live, work and play in a quaint, upscale urban environment.
The vision is for a centre where people can get up in the morning, walk downstairs to have coffee or read the newspaper, go for a stroll along the harbourfront and then head off to work.
This articleWebCite (October 4, 2005) from the Nanaimo News Bulletin says the First Nations Cultural Celebration was held in Port Place.
This articleWebCite (February/March 2012 issue) from The Trowel is titled "Turning Inside Out: Port Place Mall In Nanaimo, BC". The Trowel is a trade publication owned by One Point Media; see http://pointonemedia.com/content/trade-publications. Roy notes above that it is a "niche market industry publication", but I don't think that detracts from the publication's reliability.
Per wp:AUD, the sources' audience must also be considered. Attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability. Your block quotes above from the published twice-a-week Nanaimo News Bulletin bring this to mind. Circulation: 5,394.
Also, your reliance on The Trowel, published 6 times a year by the BC Wall & Ceiling Association, "expressly for" the "western Canadian wall and ceiling industry"[70].
Similarly, passing mentions, of ordinary stuff that happens at the least notable malls in the world (workers hit a water pipe and water gushed out on the street in front of the mall?) doesn't seem like the substantial coverage required by GNG -- though it is your first above-cited block quote example of notability. Epeefleche (talk) 16:30, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I support keeping the article's content. I have equal preference with keeping the article as is and a merge/redirect to Nanaimo. There is sufficient reliable coverage of Port Place Shopping Centre that it could be discussed in its own article, or in Nanaimo and an article spun out later if it receives more substantial coverage from nonlocal publications. Cunard (talk) 20:42, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: I was about to close it as no consensus, since we are 7:3 delete+redirect/keep (at the edge), and the discussion is about which sources are RS and independent. This question can be discussed forever, but I will still relist it for one more week to give all of us a chance to discuss new sources which appeared here.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:57, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for relisting. One of the keeps has since updated its position (to equal preference with keeping the article or merging/redirecting it). And there are a couple of others who would accept a redirect. In any event, I don't think that 7-3 (since you identified the editor positions by that more than 2-1 margin) is typically seen as "no consensus", though of course this is not strictly a numbers game. Also, when looking at the arguments, those focused more on wp policy (such as wp:AUD and GNG) are usually given more weight, which I think would tilt the margin to even greater than 7-3 in the !vote. But in any case, one of the 3 keeps now accepts a redirect.Epeefleche (talk)
The issue of ordinary stuff that happens (Epeefleche, above) is the key point here. Let's say I wanted to write an article about St. Mary, Star of the Sea (Bronx, NY). I can find lots of local coverage. For example, [71]. Is that article enough to establish notability? I think The Island Current qualifies as a reliable source. It's a printed newspaper, with a paid circulation of several thousand. It's not self-published. It's not a passing mention. But, there are two problems. One, is that it's local, so it fails WP:AUD. But, more than that, the event being discussed in the article is mundane. It's about a 8th grade school basketball team. Schools all over have basketball teams. They all play games. Sometimes a team goes undefeated. They all get their pictures taken at the end of the season in their basketball uniforms. They all have wonderful teachers who put in a lot of hard work organizing the league and deserve to be recognized. In the context of a local community newspaper, it's news. It's what helps tie the community together. But, in the larger context, it's nothing special. Maybe it got a couple of sentences in some NY Times article about school athletics in the city. Maybe it got a 30 second sound bite on the local TV news because it was a slow day and they needed a human interest story. But, passing WP:N? No way. But, wait, I'm sure if I slog through the archives, I can find dozens of articles about St. Mary's. And not just about their sports teams. They got a new roof. They had some vandals break into the building. A new priest was appointed. Weddings, christenings, funerals. The kids marched in the Memorial Day parade. The basement was flooded in a storm. Does any of that add up to WP:N. No, sorry.
See my updated position above. I primarily support keeping the article's content per WP:PRESERVE. I have equal preference with keeping the article as is or merging/redirecting it to another article. Cunard (talk) 20:42, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would be fine with a redirect (or a delete). But per my above comments still do not think a keep or merge are in order. And kudos to Roy for a thoughtful and well-stated post on "ordinary stuff that happens". If I were a fan of essays, I would say that has the makings of one. Well said. I believe we called the criteria "notability" for a reason. Epeefleche (talk) 23:21, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Most of your essay is analysis of St. Mary's, which is WP:WAX. For example, 8th grade teams don't get millions of visits per annum, and don't need roads built by the local government. And 8th grade teams are not venues or reference points on the map. Unscintillating (talk) 07:23, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In the last sentence, I don't see any relation between the word "significant" and the notability guideline. Wp:prominence is the WP:Due weight threshold for what goes into an article, and WP:IINFO is the difference between statistics and encyclopedic material. Unscintillating (talk) 07:23, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:GNG does not require non-local sources; and WP:AUD, which is not a criteria typically applied to mall AfDs, only requires one "regional, national, or international source". Unscintillating (talk) 07:23, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - due to age, history, and location, seems to cross threshold into notability. Epeefleche's mall AFD spree has had some bad nominations, but this one probably merited discussion. At very least, this discussion is so long I can't imagine finding a consensus at this juncture in the article's history.--Milowent • hasspoken02:38, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Putting aside the arguments for inherent notability, which appear to have no basis in WP policy or guidelines, and those about the size/prominence of Newark, which I assume are based on WP:POLOUTCOMES but aren't really relevant in the absence of in-depth treatment in reliable sources, there seems to be a general consensus that at this time there doesn't exist enough significant coverage to support a biography. Deor (talk) 10:36, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Local mayors are not inherently notable, there is no evidence in the article that he is nationally notable. This article should be deleted Wayne Jayes (talk) 06:53, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not even a mayor, he's just a city councillor — the nominator may have misunderstood why Newark mayoral election, 2014 is being linked to in the article (he was merely on the council candidates slate of the person who actually is the actual mayor, Ras Baraka.) Due to their notability being exclusively local in nature, however, city councillors don't pass WP:POLITICIAN except in extraordinary circumstances (i.e. internationally famous metropolitan city with a population in the millions, or national recognition that extends beyond his own city alone) that haven't been met here. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 18:18, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, they shouldn't. Wikipedia grants notability to city councillors in internationally famous "world cities" with populations in the millions; it does not grant a presumption of notability to city councillors in every place that merely happens to be the largest city in its own state. Bearcat (talk) 20:53, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Read my comment again: internationally famous world cities with populations in the millions. That class of cities includes New York City and Chicago both; it does not include Newark. The rule is that city councillors are only considered notable enough for Wikipedia if you can make a credible case that their notability extends beyond their own city to the national or international level — so city councillors are considered notable just for being city councillors only if the city is large and famous enough that its municipal politics are inherently of national or international interest. (Absent that, they have to personally become national or international figures for reasons beyond their office itself, and don't get to keep Wikipedia articles just for being city councillors.) Bearcat (talk) 22:26, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I read and understood your first comment and the two others in which you repeated yourself, no need to again. Please read the question again, click on the articles, and see how the " big famous rule" is working out for contributions to Wikipedia.Djflem (talk) 00:08, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no reason council members in any city should be inherently notable, considering the actual size of Newark, it definitely does not pass. The better test is, do we even have published resources to create articles on ALL councilors back to 1900? If we don't, just creating them on the current ones will lead to way to much presentist bias in the project.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:07, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
While creating articles about new new city council members may appear recentism, it can be an impetus to investigate the question you are are proposing, are there sources for info about former members. If one views San Francisco Board of Supervisors, the grid there invites the possibility of being filled in, and that can and maybe will happen one- by-one, i.e. as the individual articles are written.Djflem (talk) 10:14, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bearcat. We should consider a City a "world city" for the purposes of this guideline when the city consist of a population north of one million and is internationally recognizable. In the present case, Newark fails both criteria. This would not preclude a subject from passing WP:GNG rather than an assumption of notability. Enos733 (talk) 00:26, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Though the article needs expansion, there is a credible claim of notability backed by reliable and verifiable sources. Addition of the further available source material focusing on McCallum would only further advance the case. I disagree with the claim of inherent notability for city council members; while the election to a council position in a city of the renown of Newark is a credible claim to notability, the coverage in sources is necessary. I also take issue with the claim that there is a world city / million-person minimum, which sets an arbitrary threshold. We seem to have consensus on the notability of members of the New York City Council, but due to a persistent presentist bias we don't even have articles for every President of the City Council, let alone any certainty on the existence of "published resources to create articles on ALL councilors back to 1900" for New York City. Rules of thumb are useful guides, but that's all they are. Alansohn (talk) 13:16, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article doesn't say much beyond "he was elected, then assumed his seat" and a search for sources just turns up passing references like this. Tiller54 (talk) 17:00, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, local council members for any city can be notable if there is substantial, reliable and non-routine coverage of their activities in reliable sources. In the case of McCallum, I can't find any evidence of that sort of coverage, and Newark is not a large enough city to justify an exception to that rule. Lankiveil(speak to me)07:33, 13 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Comment- After seeing a number of votes and valid reason, I am changing the vote. I agree that the sourcing has been really bad, Ritchie333's point about Hendrix and Dogg are actually bright. The main article, Alter ego requires a lot of improvement. Proven entries shall be added there. 16:06, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to WP:INDISCRIMINATE, lack of sourcing, and little-to-no explanation of how such nicknames even hold significance (not counting stage names). SNUGGUMS (talk·contribs)16:11, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per indiscriminate as above. However if it is kept it needs some serious editing as a lot of the examples are just stage names or nicknames rather than separate personae. Keresaspa (talk) 17:14, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unverified; borderline nonsense. The article is based on a complete misunderstanding of the term Alter ego, even though it links to it. "An alter ego (Latin, "the other I") (disguised) is a second self, which is believed to be distinct from a person's normal or original personality. A person who has an alter ego is said to lead a double life." It has nothing to do with characters assumed by performers for dramatic or comic effect. Much less with stage names, which the article says are not the same thing but then includes stage names (e.g. Marilyn Manson) in the table. --MelanieN (talk) 21:07, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep : Doesn't read like an advert, describes new technology that has been developed for undersea searches. The references seem valid to me. Wayne Jayes 14:31, 28 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waynejayes (talk • contribs)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Delete - agree the suggestion here seems to be that the company has inherited notability from companies this company has worked with. It doesn't work that way. We need significant coverage about the company itself in independent reliable sources for the subject to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. I don't think we're there yet. St★lwart11111:56, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete - Software company article of unclear notability, lacking significant coverage in multiple independent references. The only independent refs are a review of one of the company's games, and an article in Polish, subject unclear. Even if the Polish article meets RS, on its own it is not sufficient to establish notability. Page was created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 09:43, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep Subject is the flag of a major secessionist movement that has gained enormous global attention. IMO there is enough RS coverage to pass GNG. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:29, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (and merge content into Federal State of Novorossiya) - This is yet another undue Ukraine crisis related article. The subject matter of this article can be easily covered at the main article ("Federal State of Novorossiya") without it necessarily needing a separate article of its own. I am astonished at how contributors can honestly say that this article does meet WP:GNG.
1. "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail. - The design of the flag has not received significant coverage. The Moscow Times [76], a youtube link on KyivPost [77] and an article in a Ukrainian magazine [78] hardly amount to "significant coverage".
2. "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. - The sources in the article seem mainly reliant upon a social media encounter and a press conference, there is only limited analysis and somewhat reliable commentary being made in one of the sources. [79] The rest are of limited "editorial integrity" as they provide unreferenced claims. The flag at the Donetsk People's Republic website is in fact different to the flag upon which the article is based, hardly reliable or verifiable for these purposes. [80]
3. "Sources" should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. - The Donetsk People's Republic website is hardly a "secondary and/or objective source" for these purposes. [81]
4. "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. - It would appear that the user has "presumed" that this topic is worthy of a separate article, maybe the best thing would have been is to have gone to the relevant talk page first (Talk:Federal State of Novorossiya). I'm sure the users who actively engage and contribute on this topic area would have simply incorporated this information into that article and not recommend a separate one.
5. WP:RECENT - Undue attention has been given to the flag simply because of its recency. Whilst by no means binding, using the WP:10YT "10 year test" it would appear that this article unequivocally fails. Lunch for Two (talk) 05:44, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are confused, this is not talking about the flag of the Donetsk People's Republic. Your first point about "Significant coverage" is just your point of view I have provided additional sources above, per WP:NOENG, the reliable sources do not have to be in english. Your second and third points, again this is not the Donetsk People's Republic. Your fourth point goes along with Significant coverage which I feel the flag has recieved on it's own. Your fifth point points to an essay, not policy or a guideline as you are assuming that this flag is not notable on it's own which it is through the sources given. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:31, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – If the "amount of content" is not high enough, then why not take note of the fact that the article was created less than two weeks ago? It would be best to at least wait for awhile before nominating such a new article for deletion. Dustin(talk)00:33, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Lunch for Two (maybe not all of it) and The Almightey Drill. I simply didn't see the need to say the same thing again. (I guess I should from now on.) It is short and should be merged, in my opinion. United States Man (talk) 01:17, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All sources you provided are not mainstream English world media (such as BBC NewsNBC News, etc.) but "specialised media that happens to be in the English language". The flag just did not get mainstream English world media (or you and I missed that) (unlike the pilot Nadiya Savchenko); hence in my view the flag does not meet WP:GNG. But I did not ask for the deletion of the information in the article (since I find it very interesting) but it is so little information that I do not see the point of it having its own article. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me!20:06, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing in WP:GNG that goes into mainstream English sources though. What do mainstream English sources even mean and from whose point of view? As stated in the guideline sources do not have to be in English as well. (WP:NOENG). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:25, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"mainstream English sources" I consider things that the average English speaker has daily contact with. People with no link to Eastern Europe will not daily look on the websites of The Moscow Times or KyivPost. I just do not see the point in having a lot of tiny articles with just a few interesting things on it. The rules are principles, but I see no point in blindly following them if in my opinion they make Wikipedia not a better encyclopaedia. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me!13:11, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Keep. This article helped me identify and explicate a symbol seen in a video news-clip - following a standard link from a page on a territorial entity. I call that encyclopedic. - Jandalhandler (talk) 21:45, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Expanding on the above: looking around Wikipedia, we find many political entities have infoboxes with images of their respective flags and links to separate articles on those flags. This applies variously to:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
No evidence for notability. The references,as is typical for such articles, are either mere announcements, or listings in directories. DGG ( talk ) 04:09, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I believe this article adheres to WG:GNG in that there is broad coverage from reliable sources. Do you have preferences on what type of articles you believe would help substantiate the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.193.187.122 (talk) 05:46, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, most of the sources provided in the article are about the products of this company, not the company itself. I'm also suspicious that a fair chunk of them read more like reprinted press releases than genuinely independent journalism. Lankiveil(speak to me)07:16, 13 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Article contains one external source that references Patchin as an American sportscaster. Most of the article contains original research, therefore violating WP:NOR. The article has not "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", therefore making it violate WP:SIGCOV. Patchin's notability as a sportscaster for KXLY-TV "can be better appreciated than if they were each a separate page", according to WP:NOPAGE. Rp0211(talk2me)06:09, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Political party with only one candidate. Party had not received significant coverage in reliable sources and has not received any coverage outside the context of Evan Falchuk's gubernatorial campaign Hirolovesswords (talk) 02:50, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Despite being the article's author, I was not notified of this discussion. The United Independent Party has received national coverage, as cited in the article. It passes WP:GNG with multiple sources covering the topic specifically. Political parties, especially one with a statewide nominee, should be considered notable.--TM11:31, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not seem to be a notable political party, and given that anyone can register a political party and stand for a statewide office, this does not make a particular political party notable. Also, writers of articles get no special privileges in terms of deletion of articles they authored. Solntsa90 (talk) 18:52, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not yet an official party. According to one of the article's main sources, the "United Independent Party" is "a political designation that could become an official party if [the candidate] gets more than 3 percent of the vote in November." Does not presently satisfy WP:ORG. Perhaps it could be userfied and recreated if and when it attains official status.--JayJasper (talk) 18:56, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The UIP and Falchuk's campaign have received national coverage, see The Daily Beat from July 5 and the Wall Street Journal and Ballot Access News. The difference between a political designation and a political party is a matter of local designation. States have various laws defining party status. The UIP has not been defined as a party in Massachusetts, but it is organized in the same manner as other political parties.--TM16:26, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only Falchuk himself calls it a "party" -- it seems to lack any organization/leaders/members/committees/conventions/platforms/candidates beyond his own campaign. To be an official party he needs to win 3% of the vote this fall. Rjensen (talk) 00:47, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep. No offense, but I retain my opinion at the deletion proposal in the Chinese Wikipedia. I would like to invite the upcoming Wikipedians to look into links like [83][84][85][86][87][88], and so on - same as what I listed in zhwiki. Plus, this site has been ranked around #210k on Alexa Global traffic stats. Many websites less popular than CDT (or even without a satisfying Alexa traffic rank) were recorded in Category:News websites and/or Category:News aggregators. Such as Jurnalo,Tahitipresse, just to list a few. Thanks. KouDou05:54, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a pretty influential online magazine whose reports are frequently cited by academics and other news outlets.TheBlueCanoe12:10, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references, created by an SPA as possibly promotional. A search did not turn up any significant RS coverage.Dialectric (talk) 09:24, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, reads like an ad to me (although a lot more subtle than the marketing copy we usually see). No independent reliable sources cover this product as far as I can tell. Lankiveil(speak to me)07:10, 13 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
delete. Let's do the routine thing and find his GS h-index to be 14 (why didn't the nominator save us the trouble?). Not quite enough for a reasonably well-cited field. Too early. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:45, 4 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Editors are often advised not to edit in areas of which they do not have a good understanding. The relevant policy is WP:Prof. Editors are expected to carry out WP:Before before nominating articles for deletion. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:11, 7 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Per nomination and above comments. From article: "He is known for his friendship and collaboration with..." Google search does not show results that would change this to keep. --Jersey92 (talk) 14:47, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The special care we need to apply to those who are connected with fringe theories applies here. He does not come close to passing any notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:00, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Classic case of WP:BLP1E. A non-notable person who got mentioned during the news cycle because his arrest got him modelling offers. It's trvial, 'news of the weird' stuff. Lack of significant third party coverage outside of this 1E. Hasn't distinguished himself as a WP:PERP (his current career) or as a WP:ENT (his possible new career). Just showing that many sources covered the same 1E doesn't magically make him notable.Niteshift36 (talk) 02:04, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Don't confuse number of sources with significant coverage. It's all the same stuff, over and over, based on 1E. And since you brought up WP:RECENTISM, that essay suggests a 10 year test....this isn't even passing the 6 month test. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:19, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable. Yes, a number of sources mention this soon-forgotten bit of 'net fluff. However, there is not significant coverage of him anywhere. Yes,he was arrested by a police department, but that does not say anything about that police department.[89] Yes, he allegedly is or was a Crip, but that doesn't tell us anything about the Crips.[90] Within 6 months, no one will remember Dreamy McMug. The speed with which this went from two redirects to bad trivia sections with a suggestion of a split to (50 minutes later) an article makes me wonder why you started the discussion. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:20, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A person does not get past WP:GNG just because a lot of publications pick up the same "human interest" story about a minor and completely non-encyclopedic accomplishment — he requires substantive coverage for something significant to warrant an article on here, and that's lacking. If three or four years from now he hits the bestseller lists with his memoir My Fifteen Minutes of Internet Fame, and wins a Pulitzer Prize for it, that would be something — but merely being an internet meme for fifteen minutes or so, and having a bunch of newspapers pick up and repeat the same story about that without adding anything meaningfully new to the coverage, just makes him a WP:BLP1E with no substantive reason why he needs an article in an encyclopedia. Delete with fire. Bearcat (talk) 04:08, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/userfy. Right now this is one of those cases of "one event". The guy is infamous for his mug shot and that's all that the news stories are about: the same story. The news articles aren't even really that in-depth when you come down to it. Some may look long, but they're all essentially re-hashing the same story over and over again. Someone can userfy this if they want to, but right now there just isn't enough. Plus we also have to think about the possibility of this doing harm against the person in this instance. Not a reason to delete, but his wife and mother have publicly spoken out about how they dislike the photo being distributed on the Internet. They probably wouldn't appreciate the Wikipedia page either, to be honest. Again, not a reason to delete but something we should take into consideration. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)06:07, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. This is at best WP:SINGLEEVENT. Unless people are showing interest in this subject over the long term which at this point clearly has not been demonstrated, or he leverages the recent "15 minutes of fame" to get himself involved in notable activities, he is not notable. In those cases this should still be deleted for now because of WP:TOOSOON. --Jersey92 (talk) 21:29, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
fails WP:BIO. there is no inherent notability of ambassadors (several ambassador articles have been deleted), so simply stating that isn't an argument for keep. I found no indepth coverage there is a doctor of the name "Charles Bédard" and a mathematician "Jean-Charles Bédard " LibStar (talk) 01:41, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ambassadors can be notable if they are actually the subject of coverage in reliable sources, but are not entitled to an automatic presumption of notability just for the mere fact of being an ambassador. Bearcat (talk) 04:16, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I would definitely say that the Canadian Ambassador to France, both another major country and a very significant one to many Canadians, is notable by virtue of his office. Common sense as far as I'm concerned. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:42, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
While I maintain that the post of Canadian Ambassador to France is significant enough to confer notability on its holder, it would appear that he never held that post. The highest post I can find for him is consul. So I'm striking my vote. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:19, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
have you actually searched for any sources to establish WP:BIO. there is no inherent notability by holding the office of ambassador. LibStar (talk) 08:55, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, the Canadian ambassador to France is potentially notable in principle, I won't argue with that. However, notability is defined by the existence of coverage in reliable sources — the position does not confer an automatic "keep" on somebody whose article doesn't cite any legitimate sources. I'd be happy to flip my vote to a keep if somebody can find some sources and ref it up properly, but it can't be kept if all it does is assert that he held an ambassadorship without sourcing that fact properly. Bearcat (talk) 16:47, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the one reference provided is a dead link for me, and I wasn't able to find anything else that discusses Bédard in a non-trivial manner. Not good enough for a BLP, I'm afraid. Lankiveil(speak to me)07:08, 13 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Comment: WP:NTEMP--180.155.69.97 (talk) 15:13, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Done The mess is fixed up. Piguy101 (talk) 16:55, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
