Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 February 23

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 22 February	24 February >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 10:56, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Bean Community Theater

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

Article's subject fails to meet the notability guidelines as per WP:ORG. References consist only of web pages, some of them doing no more than associating the organization with notable events (e.g. Hurricane Katrina— notability is not inheritable) and others containing no actual information about the organization. Web pages are sources, but they are poor ones at best, and having many poor sources does not compensate for having one good one, which this article still lacks after five years. I suspect that the article was written by members of this organization, and therefore there is a conflict of interest and dubious claim to having a neutral point of view. KDS4444^Talk 21:13, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Further, one of the references is a write-up blog about a show the company did. The show may or may not be notable, but the fact that this particular theater company produced it does not make the company notable-- the reference belongs in an article about the play, not about the theater group (or else every high school production of Shakespeare would warrant a Wikipedia article). KDS4444^Talk 23:51, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Another link citation is dead.
The next link citation is to an actual public blog not run by the theater group, but the blog's home page indicates that its reach is only greater New Orleans-- that makes this a local news cite, not a regional or national one. Fails notability requirement on those grounds. KDS4444^Talk 00:04, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Last, the final two citations are both to dead links as well. KDS4444^Talk 00:11, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 01:57, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Whether a link is live or dead is neither here nor there, the question is whether the source exists, not whether the link is fresh. NOLA.com is the website of the Times-Picayune, the main newspaper of NO. Those two cites in the footnotes are keepers, at a glance, even if one is marked as "blog" it's actually supplemental coverage by a newspaper reporter. Community landmark = keep. Carrite (talk) 20:56, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme (talk) 00:13, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment See my third bulleted comment above. The Times-Picayune is a city newspaper, not a regional or national one-- therefore any citations to it cannot count towards establishing notability. And there really is nothing else. KDS4444^Talk 03:55, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is it really true that an article in a "city newspaper" doesn't confer notability? Do we have a list of which publications are "city" and which are "regional"? If the Times-Picayune isn't regional, does Louisiana have a regional paper? I'm not weighing in one way or another on specific notability in this case, but I'm concerned by your interpretation of notability requirements. squibix (talk) 19:33, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Let me reiterate, and refer to WP:ORG as I do:

"Organizations are usually notable if they meet both of the following standards:

The scope of their activities is national or international in scale.
Information about the organization and its activities can be verified by multiple, third-party, independent, reliable sources."

Neither of these things seems to be the case here: the scope of this group's activities is certainly not national or international. Neither can their activities be verified by multiple, third-party, independent, reliable sources. If those are the criteria, then it is not possible to argue that it has met them. KDS4444^Talk 05:03, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Another point: while I agree that community landmarks should be kept, I am not sure that the previous editor understands that this is NOT a "landmark" but rather an organization-- the organization happens to have a physical headquarters and mailing address, but these in and of them selves are not landmarks. KDS4444^Talk 09:03, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vaca tion 9 00:24, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 11:03, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 00:00, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - In accordance with WP:ORG requirements: not national scope; nor sufficiently documented by independent sources. --Noleander (talk) 16:26, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per WP:GNG. Described by the NYT in 2011 as "an 11-year-old institution",[1] lost its Edward Wisner Donation[2] in 2011,[3] is "something of a godsend to New Orleans theater", [4] and gets a brief mention in the 2010 Mayor's Summer Youth Program.[5] The online sources aren't numerous, but I believe that this organisation is well established and likely notable. -- Trevj (talk) 02:38, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. J04n(talk page) 00:07, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vera Michalski

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

Article about a non-notable person. Coverage exists for this individual, but almost entirely in sources that are affiliated with the subject. There is not enough substantial coverage in independent sources to warrant inclusion. QuantifiedElf (talk) 23:33, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I found this, this, and this right away, and I'm sure there's more; in Polish, for example. squibix (talk) 19:53, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am the creator of this article. I forgot independant french sources like L'expressor Le nouvel economiste Swissjane (talk) 10:35, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (from nominator) - Squibix, the letemps.ch article you provided leads to the website's landing page and not an article. I don't think the profile of Vera in the culturactif.ch source is reliable or the type of coverage that's needed. The lejournaldelaphotographie.com link appears to be broken? Swissjane, the sources you've provided are good, thanks. You should add them to the article if you haven't done so already. I don't know French at all, so maybe another editor can comment on the weight of those articles. QuantifiedElf (talk) 00:06, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that; looks like a paywall problem. I was able to read the article initially via a google search like this one, and if looks like ~~this link~~ will take you directly to it, albeit in something of an underhanded fashion (oops, links through google are blocked; copy & paste it, I suppose: www.google.com /url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=newssearch&cd=9&ved=0CDwQqQIwCA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.letemps.ch%2FPage%2FUuid%2Fdb13e564-9d67-11de-8059-9672cdcb44ff%2FBient%25C3%25B4t_des_%25C3%25A9crivains_dans_la_canop%25C3%25A9e&ei=U_YwUayBEe-70QG3k4HwDA&usg=AFQjCNEMx6Dm9SyDebwS1iATgPlDS3vu-g&bvm=bv.43148975,d.dmQ&cad=rja) squibix (talk) 18:47, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found articles about Vera Michalksi in Figaro, Télérama, and Livrehebdo. Waynefool (talk • contribs) 08:10, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' - 569 results in Google Books, should not have been nominated. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:17, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. J04n(talk page) 00:08, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Unsolved Mysteries episodes

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

Fails WP:List. This is just a simple laundry list of episodes with no prose, lack of sources and just non-notable information. Tinton5 (talk) 23:02, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is nothing wrong with this list that cannot be solved through regular editing. It's not clear to me how this is asserted to fail WP:LIST, but seeing as how we have hundreds of other "list of [showname] episodes" articles, it's problematic to assume that such a presumed failure couldn't be fixed. Jclemens (talk) 05:02, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All notable shows have a list article for their episodes. Someone who knows how to make it load up in the proper format needs to fix it to make it more legible, but that's it. Dream Focus 01:26, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The material may have been copied from here which is available as CC-BY-SA but we would need to provide the attribution to be in compliance with the license. As a list, this is in line with treatments of other television show episodes. The lack of prose is an issue of editting and does not require deletion to solve. The deletion of this list would actually hinder the addition of prose as there would be no article framework from which to build. -- Whpq (talk) 16:58, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The list is in poor shape, but all notable TV series are permitted to have "list of episode" Lists. --Noleander (talk) 16:29, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 11:37, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nik Robson

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. PROD contested by the author. His reason was that the New Zealand Football Championship is one of the fully pro leagues. That is actually not true. If you look at WP:FPL, it's listed under leagues that aren't fully pro. – Michael (talk) 22:40, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Michael (talk) 22:45, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following page for the same reason. This one was also a contested PROD, but there was no reason given for it. – Michael (talk) 22:54, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This should be two separate discussions. Robinson has only ever been signed to non-fully pro clubs in New Zealand and the US making him clearly non-notable, whereas Prempak has been on the books for a Thai Premier League club meaning he may meet WP:NSPORT if he has an appearance. I would add that the source listed is inconclusive since it lists all stats as zero regardless of whether they actually are or not. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:31, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both appear to fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 10:01, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I agree with Sir Sputnik, these should be nominated separately. This is also not the first time that the nominator bundles AfD's with totally different claim of notability, and I suggest that it should be relisted individually. Mentoz86 (talk) 20:54, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator comment - I guess Sir Sputnik and Mentoz make good points here. So I'm going to go ahead and drop Pakorn Prempak from this discussion. Which now leaves us with Nik Robson. – Michael (talk) 18:34, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nik Robson then, doesn't appear to meet WP:NFOOTBALL. --Cerebellum (talk) 18:34, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 12:21, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Falk

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

Is this guy notable? Unable to find any reliable sources/coverage. Zaminamina (talk) 22:05, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable; no significant 3rd party coverage and no evident reliable sources. dci | TALK 17:29, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant delete I found one solid source and two trivial mentions: [6], [7]. If we could find one more good source, I would gladly change my vote to keep. (The article seems to have accuracy problems too, though - the FN Web article says Falk was 34 in 2009, which doesn't match up with a 1967 birth date). --Cerebellum (talk) 18:49, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Istanbul riots#Aftermath. J04n(talk page) 22:09, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

6-7 September exhibition assault

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

This crime gets news-coverage but that coverage is just routine reporting and as Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and there is no indication this crime is of any lasting significance it should be deleted. LGA _talk^edits 21:18, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT, not a newspaper. Qworty (talk) 21:30, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I must elaborate on what I have mentioned earlier:

1.) The exhibition itself is considered "a major step forward for the development of democratic values in preparation of Turkey's admittance into the European Union." by the New York Times.

2.) This event plays a major role in regards to the ongoing Ergenekon trials since many of the organizers of the attack played major roles as part of the Deep state.

3.) The event itself was a major xenophobic incident that was and is still talked about in news media outlets, peer-reviewed journals, and other information agencies.

4.) There is a definite lasting affect in terms of "Turkey's image abroad" as the President of the Turkish Historical Society asserts. Proudbolsahye (talk) 21:35, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article is not about the exhibition but attack, and you have failed to give a source to any claim to lasting significance. If you want an article on this Wikinews is that way.LGA _talk^edits 22:23, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per Dr.K. below. I don't mind if the name of the article changes. The exhibition is noteworthy in itself and the assault reinforces the notability of the exhibition and the lasting significance of the event. However if need be, I don't mind keeping the current title either due to the reasons I have mentioned above. I believe this topic of discussion regarding the name of the article should be taken to the TP of the article. Proudbolsahye (talk) 04:46, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per proposer. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 21:52, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Proudbolsahye and per significant, well-covered historic event. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 22:06, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

to quote "most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion" that's what Wikinews is for. LGA _talk^edits 22:23, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the links you provided. You have also mentioned similar ideas during your opening statements when you quoted not a newspaper. Therefore repeating them makes no difference and only serves to annoy the editors who come here to express their opinion. I will not speak about badgering as yet. My comments are here for the closing admin or editor to evaluate. Let the closing editor decide if my arguments have merit or not. I don't need repetitive and useless reminders. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 22:34, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well as you did not address the rational for the nomination, it has nothing to do with meeting WP:GNG or if there are WP:RS or not. LGA _talk^edits 05:41, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Dr.K. said "Per Proudbolsahye." If he didn't address the rational of the nomination...I did. Proudbolsahye (talk) 05:55, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In addition to my !vote above I would like to suggest that the article be renamed to 2005 Istanbul riots photographic exhibition, or something similar, because the exhibition is a very significant event for Turkey on its own merits as it demonstrates the existence of significant political maturity in the country as has been commented upon by various sources. In addition the attack could be viewed in the wider context of the larger event and make the article, and its title, less POV. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 02:13, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment :There are hundreds of exhibitions everyday and each one of them has a certain theme. It is illogical to keep an article about each exhibition. But the summary of this article can be added to Istanbul riots as a section (maybe headed Legacy). Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 07:36, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If this exhibition were just another exhibition as you claim, it wouldn't have been attacked the way it had been. There is a rather controversial relationship between the Greek and Turkish communities that needs to be taken under serious consideration. I already mentioned above that the exhibition was considered a "major step forward for the development of democratic values in preparation of Turkey's admittance into the European Union" by the New York Times. Above all, the people who lead the assault weren't just random discontent individuals, they were part of the Deep state and were highly active in Ergenekon. Proudbolsahye (talk) 08:28, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Proudbolsahye, well-covered historic event. --BabbaQ (talk) 15:25, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Istanbul riots#Aftermath, probably in reduced form. This does read a bit too much like newspaper coverage; it more appropriately belongs in the context of coverage of contemporary Turkish society's reaction to the riots. Sandstein 10:43, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Sandstein, a good compromise. Miniapolis 21:18, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. J04n(talk page) 00:13, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Aho

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

No WP:RS. References are either from the DC Moore Gallery, or submitted by them. Plus one website with his autobiography. A number of dead links. IF this person exists (!), not sure he is any more notable than 90% of the painters that try to make their living by painting. No scholarly reviews cited. At all. Much of his biography is either undocumented or at schools that no longer exist or are non-notable. "Scholarships" untraceable. Student7 (talk) 21:16, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No WP:RS to establish notability per the usual policies for artists. Qworty (talk) 21:31, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Here's significant coverage in the Boston Globe and the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:34, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Widely exhibited for years; works are in numerous public collections including the Fine Arts Museum of San Francisco and the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston. Here is additional coverage by New Hampshire Public Radio and the U.S. State Department. Ewulp (talk) 02:29, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vermont-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are quite a few more good sources for him and his work in highbeam. A clear pass of WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE#4. And this story mentions works in the permanent collections of the Metropolitan Museum of Art as well as the ones Ewulp mentions, so he also passes WP:CREATIVE#5. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:16, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 00:14, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Metaforic

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

all references provided are press releases. no independent third party references provided. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 20:11, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. 20:36, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:36, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, unambiguous advertising: Our technology is proven in millions of deployed instances, from consumer deployments through to business devices. Metaforic solutions directly prevent any change to code or data by automatically adding real time security to code that is to be protected. 'References' are to routine announcements of funding and press releases, and do not establish significant effects on history, technology, or culture. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:36, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as pure unadulterated WP:PROMO and WP:SPAM. Qworty (talk) 21:32, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; insufficient significant coverage found of subject from non-primary reliable sources to indicate the subject is notable per WP:CORP or WP:GNG. Subject has received passing mention in reliable sources, however most are PR releases and are not considered when determining notability. The BBC has written an article regarding the subject, but one article does not make multiple reliable sources. Although the article clearly falls under WP:NOTADVERT, AfD is not a tool to repair articles, nor should sermountable issues be a reason for deletion.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:09, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 00:14, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Anderson (pilot)

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

This was deleted via proposed deletion last year and restored after being contested here. The PROD rationale still applies - "I'm not seeing notability here. His death and book received some local coverage but I don't see why an encyclopedia article might be justified. No non-local coverage found.", and the article hasn't been edited since it was restored. I don't understand the reasoning in the request for undeletion, particularly the claim that "many of the PROD author's edits at the time of the PROD were not considered correct or acceptable". Is being a test pilot (and, unfortunately, dying) enough to merit an encyclopedia article? Michig (talk) 19:42, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. His death is WP:BLP1E--one event, albeit the final one. As an author he fails WP:BK and WP:AUTHOR. Qworty (talk) 21:33, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:BIO1E is the better link, as "LP" isn't applicable. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:19, 24 February 2013 (UTC)}}[reply]

Delete. Somehow, he doesn't seem notable, and Wikipedia is not a memorial. The only reference leads to a 504 Error, further casting doubt on the notability.^King Jakob _C2 22:50, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The others have spelled it out nicely; dying in a testing crash of a single-engine prop plane does not confer notability. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:19, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 00:14, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Kiyoshi Ishisaka

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

There is nothing to show the subject meets WP:MANOTE or WP:GNG. The fact that he opened an aikido school 40 years ago is not notable. Teaching Steven Seagal is WP:NOTINHERITED. His name appears in a list of names in an article in Black Belt magazine, but that's not significant coverage. This looks like it may also fall under WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Papaursa (talk) 19:35, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 19:35, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. Notability is not even asserted--much less demonstrated through WP:RS. Qworty (talk) 21:35, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with Qworty--it looks like this article could have been speedied. There's no claims of notability and no WP:SIGCOV.204.126.132.231 (talk) 19:59, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep; nominator withdrew (non-admin closure). dci | TALK 00:37, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Georg H.B. Luck

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

Non-notable academic. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:15, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:PROFESSOR. Qworty (talk) 21:36, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is not the sort of field where I would expect Google scholar to be helpful in judging his impact (especially since he did much of his work pre-internet) but his Arcana mundi is held in nearly 1000 libraries and has nearly 200 citations on Google scholar, his 1997 German-language collection of texts of the cynics has recently been translated into Dutch with a nice review [8], his The Latin love elegy was translated into 5 languages, the New York Times in the late 1990s recalled him as ten years earlier being a leader of a group of anti-postmodern reactionaries, etc. I think he passes both WP:PROF#C1 and WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:44, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- PS it turns out that he was also for many years the editor in chief of the American Journal of Philology, giving him a clear pass of WP:PROF#C8. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:11, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you keep this article (which you should), I recommend moving it to Georg Luck. Cf. authority control. Jonathan Groß (talk) 11:36, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely Keep. He was a major classical scholar who wrote a very important academic book on ancient magic and witchcraft. I support moving to Georg Luck, however.--Morel (talk) 21:52, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. GS search for "Georg Luck" gives some nice cites. Notability apparent as above. The nominator's rationale is disappointingly slender. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:24, 25 February 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Keep -- several books published by the top presses in the world of medieval history (Paul Haupt was a very big name in the 1960s). Clear #C1 pass. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 02:45, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- as founder of the page, I am of the opinion that he was certainly significant enough to warrant inclusion in Wikipedia. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:47, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all of the above. WP:SNOW would seem to apply. Ray^Talk 16:42, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw as nominator. I used the original page name as a search term but as noted it is not the commonly used name for him. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:42, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ^King Jakob _C2 21:04, 2 March 2013 (UTC) (Non-admin closure)[reply]

Prix Pictet

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

This competition/prize/cash award is not the subject of in-depth coverage by unrelated, reliable parties. I found some news coverage obviously based on press announcements by Prix Pictet itself especially for its first event (example: 300 participants signed up!); virtually nothing by any journalist has actually reported in-depth on the history, process, or import of the award (example: reporting on individual competitors in a human interest story based on nationality). Most of what I found was written by or about associated persons, including Kofi Annan. Despite that person's prestige and involvement in gaining some press mention, I am positive this subject WP:INHERITs nothing. This article is the PR project of a WP:COI editor whose job is ostensibly to promote things connected to Candlestar (Candlestar (talk · contribs)), a major association behind the Prix Pictet. Were this a major award, such blatant promotion would not have been necessary. JFHJr (㊟) 18:58, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this WP:PROMO per nom. Qworty (talk) 21:36, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The nomination says: Were this a major award, such blatant promotion would not have been necessary. This implies that blatant promotion was necessary. But it was not necessary. ¶ Yes, I'm sure the nominator is right in that virtually nothing by any journalist has actually reported in depth on the history, process, and import of the award. That would probably be for various reasons, among them that very few journalists are much interested in photography (other than photos of celebs, photos by celebs, or the very occasional photo that causes a bit of a fuss (that "goes viral", in current jargon). ¶ So? Prix Pictet gets a lot of hits in Google News. True, most are unimpressive. Well, that's newspapers for you. But this article in the Guardian says: The Prix Pictet is possibly the world's greatest photography prize. In just four years it has become like an Oscar or Nobel prize for stills photographers (my emphases). The same article goes on to discuss a number of the shortlisted photographers. Daniel Beltra and Philippe Chancel may not be so very well known, but Luc Delahaye was in Magnum until he had a change of mind and left, Carl de Keyzer is in Magnum, and Robert Adams and Joel Sternfeld are about as starry as photographers can be. Ergo, its nomination system attracts not just Lightstalkers/Flickr hopefuls, but what you might call "heavyweights". No offence to the nominator, but if Adams, de Keyzer et al think that the award is worth their time, I'd say it's probably worth WP readers' attention. ¶ Elsewhere in the Guardian this year, Sean O'Hagan thought that the prize was sufficiently interesting to merit (i) an article about those who were shortlisted (4 July) and later (ii) an article about the winner (9 October). ¶ So, yes, a crap article but a worthwhile subject; keep the article and have it improved. -- Hoary (talk) 13:47, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources found by Hoary, and for the fact that Kofi Annan wrote the foreword to the first volume in 2009, and because Michelle Bogre wrote "The Prix Pictet, a leading prize in photography and sustainability, was established in 2008..." in her book Photography as Activism: Images for Social Change, Taylor & Francis, ISBN 0240812751. Also, Charlotte Appleyard and James Salzmann wrote in Corporate Art Collections: A Handbook to Corporate Buying about the "Prix Pictet, a renowned global prize for photography... Despite being relatively young, the Prix Pictet has already gained a serious reputation (former United National SecretaryGeneral Kofi Annan sits as honorary president) and the purse is an especially generous one, worth CHF100,000 (£70,000)." I should think the topic is very much worth keeping, and the article worth improving. Binksternet (talk) 05:19, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Binksternet, seems to have received a lot of coverage. --Cerebellum (talk) 13:10, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 00:16, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hapkido Boxing

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

I found no significant independent coverage of this sport. The article's only sources and links are to organizational websites and youtube videos.Mdtemp (talk) 16:07, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Mdtemp (talk) 16:07, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG; no reliable sources available. Vaca tion 9 18:32, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:CRUFT or WP:HOAX. Qworty (talk) 21:38, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I found no independent sources to support any claims of notability.204.126.132.231 (talk) 19:54, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. The nomination was withdrawn, and no other delete !votes are present. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:07, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DOGRI CINEMA

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

No reliable sources. Only sources to facebook, wikipedia and youtube. No indepedent or reliable sources GAtechnical (talk) 13:51, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep User:Ekabhishek has added a number of reliable sources. Looks good. Shyamsunder (talk) 20:42, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per improvements and additional sourcing. Nominator's concern of the old version being poorly sourced has been addressed through regular editing. The article still needs work, but kudos to User:Ekabhishek for his efforts. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:43, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just like to add well done to Ekabhiskek, article is now in a reasonable state. With my cynical hat on; shame it has probably only come about being improved to this standard because I had to nominate for the reasons I gave before hand. But seriously good job. GAtechnical (talk) 16:15, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe you could in good conscience withdraw your deletion nomination, please say so and we can get this AFD closed. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:23, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly can after being asked so nicely. I hereby withdraw the AFD. GAtechnical (talk) 11:32, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Subsidiaries of Royal Brunei Airlines#Abacus Distribution Systems. J04n(talk page) 00:32, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Abacus (GDS)

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

No assertion of either notability or encyclopedic value. 99% of the article is unsourced, and most of that is about the business maneuvers of the company, even though the article is about a software product, not the company. MSJapan (talk) 16:19, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. 17:47, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:47, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. The article is apparently about some kind of cooperative booking system for Asian airlines, which inexplicably describes itself a global distribution system. Nothing in the article suggests that this software or venture has had significant effects on history, technology, or culture. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:47, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete. That's what the airline reservation systems are called - global distribution systems! Larry Grossman (talk) 02:23, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete. I work in the GDS business. Abacus is one of many systems that allow for travellers to book their flights over multiple carriers on a single ticket. That is where the "global" comes in. These systems form the backbone of the travel industry world-wide. Henrik Thorburn (talk) 13:16, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Subsidiaries_of_Royal_Brunei_Airlines#Abacus_Distribution_Systems Aside from the very suspicious two above 'do not delete' votes with very few edit counts, this appears to be a non-notable product of a non-notable company. Redirect to the only mention of the company. Mkdw ^talk 01:36, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:20, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:18, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

comment - I have found this secondary source from Computer World (see [9]) where there is a lengthly article about Abacus International Pte and how the company succeeded (since 2005) in generating ~20% of total on-line bookings in the the Asia-Pacific region. At the moment, I am not sure if the article is worth keeping or should be redirected to Sabre Holdings. Toffanin (talk) 22:49, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 13:41, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 10:51, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Abella Anderson

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:PORNBIO. Some AVN and XBIZ nominations but no wins. A couple of NightMoves ~~People's~~ Fan's Choice wins are not enough. Only refs are IAFD, nomination announcements and AVN mention of NightMoves wins in long list of all winners for that year (i.e. fleeting mentions). The third recreation of this article seems part of a pattern aimed at creating a higher profile for non-notable (or at least not-yet-notable) pornographic actors David in DC (talk) 17:59, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes WP:PORNBIO. She has won two awards and has five nominations and more than half of them are performer awards including the AVN Best New Starlet Award. Rebecca1990 (talk) 08:15, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this retired porn actress actually fails WP:PORNBIO per norms as explained in above deletion request. Nightmoves Award is insignificant. The article indicates that during her brief career she had failed to a established a consistent "porn identity" (c.f. using different aliases) and had not worked with any notable production agency - just porn websites - which means that the article would fail at WP:V if anyone tried to add more facts. Accordingly I suggest - delete per nom. BO | Talk 21:29, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:PORNBIO. Pardon, but even excluding the arguable notability of the "Nightmoves Awards" seeming to meet WP:GNG for notability within the porn industry,[10] [11] and even in discounting her many scene-related or ensemble nominations, we can see look to Pornbio's stating "or has been nominated for such an award several times" and consider her 'Best New Starlet' AVN Awards nomination AND her 'New Starlet of the Year' XBIZ nomination. Industry recognitions that will not make it to the headlines on The New York Time. And As she has retired, we cannot predict what she will or will not do in the future that may or may not be newsworthy or notable... so it would be speculation to flatly state that "the article would fail at WP:V if anyone tried to add more facts". As with ALL BLPs, any fact added must be sourcable to appropriate sources or be removed. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:54, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 01:07, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clear failure to meet the requirements of WP:PORNBIO. By long-established consensus over many articles, NightMoves awards do not contribute notability. Scene nominations do not contribute to notability, nor does having one's name in the title of a non-notable release nominated for an award. Similarly, nominations for comparable awards (like "best new starlet") from different organizations in the same awards cycle have repeatedly been found insufficient to satisfy the "several times"/"multiple times" criteria of the awards guidelines. In the absence of any reliably sourced biographical content, and certainly none indicating notability, this falls well below consensus standards for inclusion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk)
I do not think we should be so much concerned with NightMoves awarding the same sort of awards as did AVN and XBIZ, as we should that the latter two made those nominations themselves independently from the NightMoves organization. Genre peer recognition is peer recognition. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:10, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Listen, the fact that she won 2 awards that are FAN'S CHOICE awards shows that she is indeed notable among fans, if not, they wouldn't have voted for her. It doesn't matter if the Nightmoves Awards aren't as big as the AVN or XBIZ Awards. In addition to the Nightmoves Awards, she has received multiple award nominations from AVN and XBIZ which are both notable award ceremonies and most of her awards and nominations are performer awards. She was was named the number 8 most popular porn star by Complex magazine and if you look at her twitter you will notice she has over 200,000 followers which is a big number in comparison to other porn stars. Her twitter account is also verified and very few porn stars have verified twitter accounts. Not only is she clearly notable to fans, but she also passes WP:PORNBIO with her awards and nominations. Rebecca1990 (talk) 10:31, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Listen, A) Fan's Choice (even in ALL CAPS) is irrelevant. notability as defined on wikipedia has absolutely nothing to do with being "notable among fans." B) The question about the relative "bigness" of NightMoves vs AVN and XBIZ is irrelevant, too. Up above there seems to be a difference of opinion about whether NightMoves awards are sufficiently notable. but HW is rarely wrong about "long-established consensus over many articles..." And MQS is rarely wrong about much of anything. So I'll let the closer decide who has the better take on that topic. C) I'm not familiar with Complex magazine. Please read WP:RS. If Complex magazine fits under this definition of what's a "reliable source" on wikipedia, by all means, add it to the article. D) How many followers she has on a verified twitter account. Really? Really?! I'm dumbstruck. David in DC (talk) 01:14, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Disregarding Nightmoves Awards from consideration is correct, as well as the interpretation of PORNBIO by MichaelQSchmidt is also correct. On the other hand I see how two individual nominations in the same year are the lower grade of "several nominations". Complex magazine rank helps just a little. Borderline notability but ultimately I can't say "no notability". Cavarrone (talk) 07:51, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 13:18, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails GNG. Carrite (talk) 19:18, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. J04n(talk page) 00:17, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

De Marchi

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

Reliable secondary sources unavailable. atnair (talk) 06:30, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Although both 1 and 2 appear to be based on press releases, they still give a lot of information on this firm that suggests it is a notable firm with a long history in its field. There are probably more reliable sources out there in Italian. On Google News I see 1 and 2 on a quick poke around, showing that the brand is well known in the cycling press. Mabalu (talk) 03:52, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 13:09, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It appears to be a notable cycling clothing specialty company. [12], [13] are a couple of representative reviews of the clothing. [14] seems a little press releasish out of a trade magazine. I suspect that more sources are available offline given teh age of the company. -- Whpq (talk) 17:46, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was KEEP. Notability clearly established. SouthernNights (talk) 13:05, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nandini Sahu

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

I still don't believe that this article passes threshold of WP:GNG, WP:AUTHOR or WP:ACADEMIC. Article lacks reliable, independent sources, and I was unable to find such sources. Atlantic Publisher reference doesn't cover the subject significantly and Ignou.ac.in is a profile page. Rest sources have questionable reliability. — Bill william compton^Talk 17:04, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: notability is not observed. There is not any reliable reference which shows the notability. Jussychoulex (talk) 18:46, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

The same editor after sometime has nominated the article for deletion again, while first nomination for deletion was also mistaken, as I discussed on the talk page of Joe Decker as this and that. Joe Decker excepted notability of the subject referring this. Justice007 (talk) 22:17, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you always think the worst of other people? "I do not want to reveal that but voting only by editors from (or belong to) that part of the world, does not satisfy me", I'm not sure what you are implying here. I still have concerns about the notability of the subject. I hold no animosity towards anyone here. — Bill william compton^Talk 00:26, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A simple Google search reveals that Sahu is a notable poet in the Indian subcontinent. Perhaps we could add more sources to help buttress the statements in the article? I hope this helps! With regards, Anupam^Talk 04:11, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would you care to present some objective evidence to back up your assertion? — Bill william compton^Talk 13:28, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - added ref. Bill, why didn't you add WP Poetry tag before AfDing? In ictu oculi (talk) 03:50, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely sure how this is relevant to the ongoing debate? — Bill william compton^Talk 05:48, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As the discussion on talk page of Joe Decker and cited sources establish the notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.59.111.238 (talk) 18:56, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This is the only contribution of this IP. — Bill william compton^Talk 05:48, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I don't really see much evidence that anything has changed since the first AfD, 6 months ago. Sources present in article seem mostly to be self-published or sourced to an online zine of unknown credibility. Hence, fails WP:AUTHOR, WP:BIO. Needless to say, as associate prof with minimal citations listed in Gscholar no notability is demonstrated under WP:PROF. Ray^Talk 04:36, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just referring the rules without going through the sources is not the correct move. The subject is notable, having not sources online, does not mean, subject fails notability. Subject has been interviewed by "Times of India", That I cannot find online, but it is mentioned to other sites as well. I have just added to the article this source that shows the notability too.Justice007 (talk) 11:06, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the problem seems to be with the article's composition and lack of attention pre-AfD, not with the subject's actual notability. MezzoMezzo (talk) 12:18, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 12:55, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-Notability is very clear, academic google books, and other sources are enough to be notable.Aanapk (talk) 09:38, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Jack Stapleton and Laurie Montgomery series. J04n(talk page) 00:18, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Crisis (novel)

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

Fails WP:NBOOKS. The book has no critical commentary that I could find by a Google and Highbeam search, the book has not won a significant literary award, and I would not consider Robin Cook historically significant, although notable. Albacore (talk) 17:24, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like a copyvio of some blurb, website or advert to me. Not encyclopaedic - would take a complete rewrite. Peridon (talk) 18:27, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Does not look like a copyvio to me. Infact it looks very much like a typical stub. BO | Talk 11:34, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is because you are now seeing User:Tokyogirl79's substantial rewrite after the Copyvio was removed: [15]. AllyD (talk) 13:52, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 12:47, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I forgot to throw my 2 cents in for some reason. My opinion of this is that although the sources on the entry are rather light, this is still technically enough for it to barely squeak by notability guidelines at this point in time. I honestly thing that there would be more merit in creating an entry for the Stapleton series as a whole and redirecting there, but such an entry doesn't yet exist. I'll try and see if I can throw something together, but my schedule has been sort of hectic lately. (I think this is why I didn't immediately vote- I think I was planning on creating such an entry.) It's a weak keep for now, although once an entry for the series is created, it'd be a redirect.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:39, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Jack Stapleton and Laurie Montgomery series. I've started an entry and it needs a LOT of work, but it's a good alternative for the most part. We can redirect and if/when more sources become available, we can unredirect.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:35, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 00:19, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sant khapti maharaj

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

The importance of the article cannot be ascertained due to lack of Reliable sources in the article which proves that this person meets WP:NOTABILITY. I could not find any result in Google News and Books search. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 18:15, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest if you search on google with Sant Khapti Maharaj key words it will show many records where one can confirm about what has written in article is correct.User:Ashishmtiwari

Though I can find out from those results that this is not a hoax, but I could not find any Reliable sources, which would include mention in reputed national newspapers, Journal articles, Books. Without any reliable secondary sources which shows that the article meets WP:BIO, the article should be deleted. You are requested to add the references. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 03:48, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete - no reliable sources to establish notability.--Staberinde (talk) 11:13, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 12:46, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete Like most gurus I don't get anything that doesn't immediately trace back to a devotee, and I get no book hits at all. Mangoe (talk) 02:48, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. J04n(talk page) 00:21, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Slovenian Prealps

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

The article appears to be part of a sustained Internet campaign to promote a book and new classification system for the Alps (SOIUSA) that is not, as far as I can discover, approved by any authoritative Alpine body. The name of the article is one of many new, artificial titles proposed by Italian author, Marazzi, but a search on google books only turns up one reference: Marazzi's book (Atlante Orografico delle Alpi. SOIUSA). Likewise the 2 references in the article are to this book and an article about the book. Of course, if the classification system is officially recognised in future by the countries and Alpine clubs concerned then it could be reinstated, but for now the page should be deleted a) because it appears to be part of a WP:SOAPBOX campaign and b) to avoid confusion with the accepted naming systems for Alpine ranges. Note that these highlands are already largely covered by articles on the Julian Alps and the Pohorje mountains, both widely used in English and part of the internationally approved Alpine Club classification of the Eastern Alps. See also project discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mountains#SOIUSA. Bermicourt (talk) 18:53, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Are there more articles like this (I.e., topics only sourced from Marazzi)? It may be worthwhile to discuss all of them at once. —hike395 (talk) 20:02, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Yes, there are several that look likely candidates, but I felt it sensible to test the argument first, before embarking on nugatory work. If the consensus is that this should be deleted, then I would suggest we put up a block delete for the rest. --Bermicourt (talk) 20:45, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete' per WP:SOAP WP:GNG --- as Bermicourt says, this is an idiosyncratic classification of Alps, not generally accepted, only one author. —hike395 (talk) 01:01, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. : I've just noticed the proposal of deletion of this item and of all the references to SOIUSA on en.wiki proposed here. I edited most of the concerned pages so I think I have to give some reasons why I did it.

First of all I don't have any personal interest to diffuse or SOIUSA nor publicizing Marazzi's works. And I don't think there is any ongoing campaign about this subject; as far as I'm concerned nobody asked me to promote SOIUSA on Wikipedia. I usually contribute to it.wiki, where SOIUSA is widely accepted and used. I thought to propose this classification also on the en.wiki because I find that SOIUSA is quite convenient to navigate through the articles about the Alps. At present it is the only widely known classification which covers the whole Alpine range and which provides names of the sub-ranges non just in one national language but in all the languages spoken in the Alpine countries and in English as well.
Coming to the external recognition of SOIUSA I could remark that the on-line version of Treccani (the Italian analogous of Encyclopedia Britannica) considers the SOIUSA the current Alps classification (see Alpi article on the enciclopedia, unfortunately just in Italian). I also could remark SOIUSA is used in pubblications or web pages produced by official Italian authorities, as for instance the Province of Sondrio (see |here, pag. 73) or the Regione Piemonte (see |Tra Piemonte e Mediterraneo, par. Liguri o Marittime?). SOIUSA is also used in some Italian university pubblications, as for instance in |this one], of the Università di Venezia.
But, of course, if most of en.wiki interested users are feeling SOIUSA confusing or not enough sourced I've no objections to the proposed cleanup work. Good evening,--F Ceragioli (talk) 16:56, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The main SOIUSA article is probably notable. But the name "Slovenian Prealps" does not appear in English sources and the subject is already covered by the Julian Alps and the Pohorje, part of the existing Alpine Club naming system. Hence the AFD.

Other points:

* You have not cited any national or internation bodies that have approved SOIUSA. Encyclopaedias - including Italian wikipedia or Treccani - are not usually acceptable.

* "Convenient navigation" is not an argument for producing a confusing new set of articles with novel titles that clash with those using commonly accepted names.

* SOIUSA is not "widely known". Internet research shows dozens of wikipedia hits, but few authoritative sites or books.

--Bermicourt (talk) 18:59, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment --- The general notability guidelines say it is acceptable to use non-English sources to establish notability. Just because all of the sources are in Italian does not automatically exclude them. I think the main problem is that there are a small number of primary SOIUSA sources, not enough to support the notability of the Slovenian Prealps topic. —hike395 (talk) 12:37, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Are you really convinced that encyclopedias are not usually acceptable by en.wiki? There is a template made just to cite one single edition of Encyclopedia Brittannica (Template talk:Cite EB1911), whith hundreds of articles linked to it and some of them just sourced with a reference to that EB edition. Well, Treccani is not an English source, but Alps are not encompassed in any English speaking country so no wonder if the sources about them are more frequent in other languages than English.--F Ceragioli (talk) 11:29, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. WP:NOTRS says "Tertiary sources such as ... encyclopedias... and other summarizing sources may be used to give overviews or summaries, but should not be used in place of secondary sources for detailed discussion. Thus Wikipedia articles (or Wikipedia mirrors) are not reliable sources for any purpose." --Bermicourt (talk) 12:30, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Comment: F Ceragioli is correct here. See WP:TERTIARY for the guidelines for how to use encyclopedias as sources. Encyclopedias are good for determining how much weight to give a point of view, which may be relevant here. I would suggest that SOIUSA has some external validation from Treccani, enough to mention in articles, and enough to support its own article. Is it enough to support an article solely based on SOIUSA classification? I don't see it being enough --- given the general lack of citations to SOIUSA, that would be giving it undue weight. In other words, Slovenian Prealps may be failing our general notability guidelines because there do not seem to be multiple secondary sources that establish its notability outside of the primary SOIUSA sources itself. —hike395 (talk) 12:32, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Prealps have been treated as the fifth landscape type in some newer regionalisation schemes of Slovenia.[16] However, that's all I know. The referenced article is this one. I've posted a request for comment at the talk page of User:Draper, who is the Head of the Department for Regional Geography at Anton Melik Geographical Institute (research field (among others): geographical typification and regionalization), but I'm not sure if he will see it because he hasn't edited for quite some time. Perhaps me or someone else can send him an e-mail. This article also contains an overview of the regionalization of Slovenia. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 22:24, 19 February 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Keep like other geographic regions they are notable. BO | Talk 10:40, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 12:44, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Slovenian Prealps are notable (like other geographic regions)--Soroboro (talk) 23:10, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- Only those geographic regions that are mentioned in multiple secondary sources, or perhaps a single official website, are notable. I could make a website that talks about the Slovenian happy alps. That doesn't mean we should create that article.

I looked through Eleassar's first reference [17]: it just mentions that Plut's paper defines the Prealps. Unfortunately, Plut's paper [18] is in Solvene, which I can only read with machine translation. The one mention I could find was "Na drugi strani pa v hribovitem (predalpskem) in ravninskem delu Slovenije potek razvodnic ni determiniral vpliva posameznega gravitacijskega sredi{~a, ki je za oblikovanje funkcijske regije odlo~ujo~." which seems to talk about watersheds in the hilly regions, rather than a well-defined fifth region. Perhaps someone proficient at Slovene can help? —hike395 (talk) 04:37, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Later: I looked through the third reference provided by Eleassar: [19]. That reference does discuss multiple authors who defined Slovenian Prealps. To me, that means that this article meets the criteria of WP:GNG and therefore is a Keep. However, I think we still should not have region articles based only on a single SOIUSA source. There may be others that we should discuss. —hike395 (talk) 05:33, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, the reply by Draper (the researcher of the regionalisation of Slovenia, mentioned above) is available at his talk page. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 15:15, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 00:35, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sigma Team

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

Poorly-sourced, promotional article about a company that fail the ORGDEPTH notability guideline. Previously speedily deleted and then recreated with largely the same content. While a few of the games from this company may be notable, I'm unable to find any reliable, independent sources that substantively cover the subject . - Mr X 12:20, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG, no reliable independent sources covering the subject. Vaca tion 9 18:50, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this company's games seem to be notable but the company itself has not received any substantive coverage. --Cerebellum (talk) 13:15, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn Since the article I afd'd has been effectively deleted anyway there is no real reason for this to continue. Jac16888 ^Talk 12:40, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific myth

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

Barely intelligible OR filled essay article, sourced mainly to non reliable sources such as blogs and other essays Jac16888 ^Talk 12:18, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are authoritative sources in the ru:Научный миф. Definition and basic part taken from on article in scientific journal: http://scholar.google.com.tr/scholar?hl=ru&q=%D0%9D%D0%B0%D1%83%D1%87%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%8F+%D0%BC%D0%B5%D1%82%D0%B0%D1%84%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B0%3A+%D0%BA+%D0%BC%D0%B5%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%B8%D0%B8+%D0%B8%D1%81%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%8F+%D1%82%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%81%D0%BB%D1%8F%D1%86%D0%B8%D0%B8+%D0%B7%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%8F.&btnG= uppermost Candidate of Sciences of Philology Docent E.D. Blyakher and Candidate of Sciences of Philology Docent L. M. Volyn (February 1989). "article "Scientific metaphor for knowledge translation research methodology. Section number 3: metaphorical transfer between science and society"". «Philosophy of science (journal Ministry of Education and Science (Russia)»: 29–38.. Scientific myth#Scientific mythology and art written for example (among other sources) from book author = Kovtun E.N. title = fiction in literature of the 20th century year = 2008 publisher = Graduate School isbn = 978-5-06-005661-7 circulation = 1500 In the Russian Wikipedia: article was restored in the Russian Wikipedia Vyacheslav84 (talk) 12:35, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is obviously a crude first draft translation and so, per WP:IMPERFECT, time should be allowed to improve this by reference to English language sources such as:

The topic seems to be structuralist and so is likely to be difficult and fractious. But this just puts it in with other fuzzy topic areas like philosophy and sociology and so it goes... Warden (talk) 16:21, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is a very big difference between an article which is imperfect and an article like this which is virtually unintelligible. Perhaps a decent article could be written on this topic, but having this mess as a starting point would be more of a hindrance than a help - any editor wanting to write about this would just be put off by the daunting task of having to deal with the content already there--Jac16888 ^Talk 17:14, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Easier to rewrite an existing article, than start from scratch. Why is no one to me it does not start, having English sources? Now there is an anchor. Remove and no one will start. Vyacheslav84 (talk) 17:31, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wrong. As it currently stands the article is so bad that any attempting at improving it would be extremely difficult. After many years of working with badly translated articles that somebody will create and then leave for somebody else to fix I can assure you that nobody does - it is just too much work (hence the 400+ similarly poor articles found at Category:Wikipedia articles needing cleanup after translation, a huge backlog which you're just adding to). Much better for the project overall to allow someone to start again from scratch--Jac16888 ^Talk 18:04, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'll look after 5 years as you create this article. especially since no one would think to look well-done made a version in Russian Wikipedia. To quote my favorite expression: I always thought that "supporters of quality" - those who are trying finish writing the Wikipedia article to the quality of the level, but not those who removes all articles, except quality. Vyacheslav84 (talk) 18:19, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm sorry but I have no idea what you just said. Please understand that I mean no offence when I say this, but English is obviously not your native language and that you would be better off contributing to the Russian language Wikipedia where your edits would have actual value--Jac16888 ^Talk 18:48, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        No problem. The English Wikipedia is a project of translators? Quote original Мне всегда казалось, что "качественники" - это те, кто пытается дополнить статьи Википедии до качественного уровня, а не те кто удаляет все статьи, кроме качественных. Vyacheslav84 (talk) 19:33, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Update I have rewritten the article using English language sources. The Russian language sources may be relevant but I have no fluency in the language and think it is better to stick to English at this stage in the article's development. Warden (talk) 19:11, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would advise you. Vyacheslav84 (talk) 19:27, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It would be more accurate to say that you have written a new article replacing the old one - would I be correct in assuming that you used absolutely none of the previous content, and also that you would most likely not have done so were it not for this AFD. And it seems to me the article now is little more than article about Urban legends--Jac16888 ^Talk 19:15, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In my version was the academic sources, and quite strong. It could be better to fix the style. I can go to the Russian in the discussion? Vyacheslav84 (talk) 19:27, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your version is retained in the edit history. Your sources might go into the Further Reading section but I can't vouch for them myself. While we're debating the very existence of the topic, it seems prudent to minimise the Russian language content as few AFD regulars will be able to understand it. I retained the interwiki link to the Russian version of the article. When I click on that then Google offers me a translation which seems useful in suggesting further ideas for development. I am pleased to see that Newton appears in that version too as this indicates that we're on the same track. Warden (talk) 19:40, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- All right. Many thanks for the revision. And my sources in the literature section can be set aside? Sorry we can not freely because of the language barrier obschatsya. Vyacheslav84 (talk) 19:56, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have alerted some other editors who tried to help you with the article earlier. Let's see if they can help further. We have seven days for this discussion and then an eternity in which to develop and polish the topic. Rome Wasn't Built in a Day. Warden (talk) 20:02, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article now, although interesting, is not about what I (at least) would expect the expression "scientific myth" to mean. I'm not sure if what we have here is a notable topic. It is certainly not under the correct title. BigJim707 (talk) 20:22, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article Mythology (which "myth" redirects to) says: "In folkloristics, a myth is a sacred narrative usually explaining how the world or humankind came to be in its present form, although, in a very broad sense, the word can refer to any traditional story." I expected this article to be about how the scientific explanation of the Universe serves as a myth for modern people. BigJim707 (talk) 20:26, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that "myth" is being used here in the very broad sense of any traditional story. There is precedent; Mythbusters study urban and scientific myths that rarely have any religious connotations. A folklorist may declare this folklore rather than myth. But it really depends on the sources for the article--do they call these stories myths or something else? Wikipedia is descriptive, not prescriptive. --Mark viking (talk) 20:39, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I love the Mythbusters. However their sense of the word "myth" seems to be kind of like "something that lots of people believe that may or may not be true." This article is going by the same concept. A more scholarly use of the word would be more like: "a traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining some natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events." That's from the Oxford Dictionary online. BigJim707 (talk) 20:53, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See national myth for a comparable concept. Those would be exaggerated stories like Paul Revere's Ride or the idea that Britain has not been successfully invaded since 1066. Warden (talk) 20:56, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The concept, whatever the best name for it, seems easily notable and already well supported by references, thanks to Colonel Warden's rewrite. Folklore of science might be the best umbrella term, and I think that stories like Newton getting hit by the apple are more precisely legends rather than myths. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:45, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Folklore of science" sounds right to me. That gives a much more clear picture of what the article is about. BigJim707 (talk) 20:53, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree with user Vyacheslav84 and others. The notability is evident.--Soroboro (talk) 23:15, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While the name is in dispute, the topic of scientific myth/folklore/legend seems a real one. Both Warden and Vyacheslav84 have shown reliable sources for the topic. Warden's rewrite made the article intelligible and short, but well cited. With a notable topic and the major article problems resolved, there is no reason to delete. --Mark viking (talk) 02:17, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - disingenous nomination. Even the original (before Colonel Warden rewrite) article had plenty of references from books and magazines, and not a single one from blogs, while "other essays" is just a derogatory opinion of the nominator about the references published in reliable sources. the nominator refused to address my request to discuss specific issues in article talk page. Therefore I am going to restore the original text (while keeping Colonel Warden's contributions.) - Altenmann >t 02:46, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Little useful content. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:04, 24 February 2013 (UTC).[reply]
- It has little useful context because the contrib of a Russian-speaking person was gutted because it was clumsy, barely readable English. HOwever it was supplied by references to multiple books. Tomorrow I will find some time to extract some "useful content" from the erased text. - Altenmann >t 04:16, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Scientific myth of scientific journal articles (I quote the original in Russian - in my paper). «Научный миф» — принявшее рационализированную форму пифическое знание, черпающее свой материал из науки, ее имиджей и апеллирующее к ним. Научный миф может быть «методологическим» либо «фактуальным». «Методологический» миф — генерализация единичного события, ложно принятого за представителя всего класса событий этого ряда. Он создается, если какая-то идеализация привела к яркому успеху так, что выработала ожидание обязательности такого же успеха во всех случаях, независимо от их природы. В качестве примера Г. Бонди приводит «полевой миф», когда высокая эффективность максвелловской теории породила миф о том, что все хорошие физические теории должны быть полевыми. Это стимулировало создание полевых теорий, но на долгие годы отучило физиков всерьез относиться к теориям иного типа (см.: Бонди Г.[.Гипотезы и мифы в физической теории. М., 1972). Помимо мифов, подобных отмеченным Бонди и обязанных своим существова¬нием генерализации случайного единичного обстоятельства, существуют и другие «методологические» мифы, основанные на создании таких идеализированных уста¬новок методологии, которые никогда строго не проводились, но тем не менее при¬знаны реализуемыми и даже единственно возможными. Таковы отмеченные авто¬рами «Бостонских исследований» мифы: «индуктивистский миф» (Дж. Агасси), «миф об абсолютных данных» (У. Селларс) и др. (см.: Структура и развитие нау¬ки. Из Бостонских исследований по философии науки. М., 1978). К таким же мифам относится и получивший ныне широкое распространение миф о существовании так называемой естественнонаучной картины мира (КМ). Этой мифологеме приписывается осуществление синтеза физического, химическо¬го, биологического и других видов естественнонаучного знания, чем якобы реали¬зуются интегративные тенденции современной науки. Конечно, интегративные тен¬денции в науке имеют место, но осуществляются они отнюдь не в форме «естествен¬нонаучной» КМ: такая картина попросту неосуществима, интегративные тенден¬ции не могут принять «картинной» формы. Действительно, интеграция научного знания, которое включало бы в себя [столь несовместимые идеализации (идею константности физических законов в 'единстве с идеей эволюционности законов биологических), не может не содержать • себе острого противоречия. Это имеющее место диалектическое противоречие и заслоняется мифом о существовании «естественнонаучной» КМ, объединяющей мазанные идеи чисто вербально. Мифичность этой КМ ярко обнаруживается на проблеме редукционизма. Редукция биологии к физике, зафиксированная в ка¬честве противоречия, вызывает потребность в методологическом исследовании итераций по переносу, их природы, возможностей и границ. Но тот же редук¬ционизм, обосновываемый посредством апелляции к «естественнонаучной» КМ, методологической озабоченности не вызывает: ведь естественнонаучное знание заранее признается единым, разворачивающимся в рамках одной «картины». Если 1нфункция НКМ заключается в выявлении и обострении специфических противо¬речий познания, то критикуемая мифологема их, напротив, затушевывает посред¬ством вербального снятия. Общая функция научного мифа — заглушить голос «гносеологической совес¬ти» ученого-специалиста, выдвигающей этические препятствия к заимствованию знания, которое он не в состоянии подвергнуть личному компетентному контролю. Осуществлять-же такой контроль за знанием, добытым не им да еще с помощью чуждых ему стандартов, он не может, и даже не столько в силу ограниченности | компетенции, сколько из-за давления сроков, массивов перерабатываемой ин¬формации-и других факторов разделения труда в науке. Если он возьмет на себя миссию контроля, он не сможет двинуть вперед свое исследование. В «научном мифе» он обретает инструментарий Для работы с «чужим» знанием, по видимости, не вступающий в противоречие с требованиями профессиональной этики. Стало быть, субъективно-психологическую природу имеет не метафорический, а именно мифический перенос. На определенных этапах он позволяет добиться практически значимых результатов, как-то организуя мыследеятельность специа¬листов, ибо в конечном счете он отражает некую реальность — реальное разделе¬ние труда в науке. Но эта реальность выступает в обличье, якобы отражающем совсем другую реальность — свойства исследуемого объекта. Это маска, личина, выдающая себя за реальность и тем скрывающая ее. «Методологический» миф, переходя из профессионально-научной сферы в не¬научную, рождает мифы «фактуальные»: методологические фикции принимаются за реальный, освященный авторитетом науки, «факт». Здесь пролегает область генезиса многочисленных «научных» мифов, бытующих в обществе: от натурализации п-мерных пространств до мифов паранауки. Сложны и многообразны формы трансляции знания в науке и- между наукой и обществом. В процессе трансляции рождаются и новые знания о реальности, и ложные образования — «кентавры» и «научные мифы». В них заложены и возможности приращения знания, и эффективно срабатывающие мифогенные ловуш¬ки. Без исследования всего этого многообразия вряд ли возможно управление трансляционными процессами. Source - http://scholar.google.com.tr/scholar?hl=ru&q=%D0%9D%D0%B0%D1%83%D1%87%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%8F+%D0%BC%D0%B5%D1%82%D0%B0%D1%84%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B0%3A+%D0%BA+%D0%BC%D0%B5%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%B8%D0%B8+%D0%B8%D1%81%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%8F+%D1%82%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%81%D0%BB%D1%8F%D1%86%D0%B8%D0%B8+%D0%B7%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%8F.&btnG= uppermost .[статья|автор=к. ф. н. доцент Е. Д. Бляхер, к. ф. н. доцент Л. М. Волынская|заглавие=Научная метафора: к методологии исследования трансляции знания. Раздел № 3: метафорические переносы между наукой и обществом|издание=Философские науки|год=1989|выпуск=2 |страницы = 29-38] Vyacheslav84 (talk) 11:16, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. J04n(talk page) 00:23, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of military bases abroad countries

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

Nothing here that isn't covered much clearer in the lists at Lists of military installations Jac16888 ^Talk 12:15, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We are talking about abroad military bases - analogue List of Russian military bases abroad. There are authoritative sources in the ru:Военные базы стран мира за рубежом. Article List of military bases abroad countries is based on articles in specialized journal: Nezavisimoye Voyennoye Obozreniye Vadim Solovyov, Vladimir Ivanov. Military-base slipknot. List of military bases abroad countries#British military bases abroad written for example (among other sources) from ru:Зарубежное военное обозрение Foreign Military Review. British ground troops abroad Vyacheslav84 (talk) 13:06, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. While the information can be found in a more roundabout way elsewhere, I can see how this information can stand on its own. However, it will need to become a much more comprehensive and clearer list. dci | TALK 20:27, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. This is a topic of legitimate interest and notability -- which countries have military bases outside of their own territory and where those bases are. However, the article will probably need a new title and to be improved per DCI2026. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:09, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Interesting article to maintain and to develop.--Soroboro (talk) 23:19, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ITSINTERESTING. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:23, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The title is meaningless. Whose bases? Which countries? How can there be significant secondary sources to meet WP:GNG for a meaningless subject?--Charles (talk) 21:01, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- But the article does not secondary sources? specialized journals: Nezavisimoye Voyennoye Obozreniye Vadim Solovyov, Vladimir Ivanov. Military-base slipknot and ru:Зарубежное военное обозрение Foreign Military Review. British ground troops abroad - it is not a secondary sources? Whose bases? all foreign. Which countries? those who have such a base. This is clear when reading the article. Vyacheslav84 (talk) 04:33, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- See my recommendation above. The subject appears meaningful to me. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:02, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then it needs to be moved to title which makes sense in English.--Charles (talk) 17:48, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Wikipedia:Be bold. Vyacheslav84 (talk) 15:48, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Users should not be bold in moving an article when it is under discussion. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:49, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- I agree with Vyacheslav84: abroad military bases - analogue List of Russian military bases abroad. The topic is notable.--Goldenaster (talk) 14:14, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seeing which nations have military bases outside their nation, and where they are at, is of clear encyclopedic value. Dream Focus 01:33, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If kept, and I'm not convinced it needs to be, it certainly needs to be moved to a title which makes sense in English and also rewritten in English. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:39, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:Be bold. Vyacheslav84 (talk) 15:49, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Users should not be bold in moving an article when it is under discussion. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:49, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Exactly. -- Necrothesp (talk) 01:39, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Necrothesp here. While it maybe notable what countries have foreign military bases, this article needs major work; yet at the same time AfD is not WP:CLEANUP. When looking for what the internet comes up with for "Countries with foreign military bases" one finds that the sources found are predominantly focuses on U.S. military bases, and most of those have a negative-POV against the U.S. military (should I be surprised by this on the internet?). So then the question that begs to be asked is as an overall subject are the foreign military bases that are not of the U.S. notable as an entire subject? Sure individual bases maybe notable, but would it be WP:SYNTH to say that all are notable?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:51, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

частный корреспондент. Прощай, Африка? - French military bases abroad — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.189.106.182 (talk) 06:17, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Along with the U.S. military bases abroad also have their NATO allies. Military presence abroad to have not only the two superpowers. Some European countries have maintained and continue to maintain large and small contingent of its troops on the territory of the former colonies. Leading position in this area is France, which contains a large troop of approximately 3.5 thousand people in Africa (Djibouti, Antilles). Small units are stationed in New Caledonia, Polynesia, Chad, Gabon and Senegal. Britain maintains its base in Cyprus (3200 people)., The Falkland Islands (1650 pers.) And in Gibraltar, Nepal, and in several countries of the British Commonwealth. Small military bases abroad is from the Netherlands and Portugal. Vyacheslav84 (talk) 13:57, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep as per Vyacheslav84; once discussion is finished, can be moved to something like 'Countries with military bases beyond their territory' or some such. Let's not let systemic bias influence us just because this is a concept from Ruwiki. Buckshot06 (talk) 04:22, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No successful argument that the subject meets WP:GNG. J04n(talk page) 00:38, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fearghus Bruce

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

Contested prod where the rationale appeared to confuse whether the subject exists with notability. Subject just about passes WP:NFOOTY as he has played part of one game in a fully professional league but is not a first choice keeper and plays mainly in a non professional league for the reserves. Lack of substantial references means he fails WP:GNG. Fenix down (talk) 09:26, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:10, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - passes WP:NFOOTBALL, and is young enough that I am willing to give the benefit of the doubt re:WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 10:00, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Not sure I understand why you would give the benefit of the doubt. Surely there are the level and quality of sources required by GNG or not? If this was someone who had played 5 or 6 games per season over the last few years, I could understand, sort of. But this is a guy who has played part of one game. I have no idea how you can assert notability on the basis of that. Fenix down (talk) 10:10, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to the reference at the article it was a whole game, and he is still a young player, so isn't the point of the WikiProject to create articles for youngsters, even after their first game, and subsequently develop the articles as the individual's career develops? C 679 20:26, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But only if they fulfill GNG, surely? That is the primary notability guideline. You can't have a project creating guidelines like NFOOTY for use as cover when GNG isn't met, I have always understood NFOOTY to be the first step to establishing GNG, not a sticking plaster when there aren't really enough sources, but it would be nice to keep the article as he is a young player after all. I have no problem with this article being reproduced if and when this guy is a seasoned pro, but there is nothing here other than one appearance. It's not even like he is a very highly rated player who has been talked about at length as a prospect or has achieved great things at youth level. He has played one game, he has not featured at any international level, he is a third choice goalkeeper and the article explains at length the convoluted set of circumstances that effectively forced the mangers hand. I repeat myself, there is no way on earth this guy passes GNG, at the moment. As an additional point, I would ask Giant Snowman how he can possibly reconcile his comments above about benefit of the doubt for this player when he was happy to state that this player clearly failed GNG, having played only one pro game in the Hong Kong League, despite being several years younger than this player. That player was deleted on the grounds of GNG failure, I see no relative difference here. Fenix down (talk) 23:14, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you're looking for logical consistency then you're looking in the wrong place. That's the last thing that you'll find in any deletion discussion about football articles. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:01, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

C679, we don't make decisions on the basis of what might happen in the future. The point of topic-specific notability guidelines is that they are supposed to identify subjects for which there will almost certainly be already existing significant coverage in independent reliable sources, even if if such coverage can't be found by simple Internet searches. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:01, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - 1 appearance does not confer notability. Even though that is the wording of WP:NFOOTY, there are plenty of cases in the last year where articles about footballers has been deleted despite passing NFOOTY, because of the failure of WP:GNG. This footballer fails GNG, and that is the most important notability guideline. Mentoz86 (talk) 20:49, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 00:24, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rupesh Talaskar

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

Unverifiably sourced Bio. PROD contested. Not seeing anything in sources provided that is independent, or verifiable. Seems to fail WP:NOTE. Fbifriday (talk) 09:07, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, apparently an autobiography, the sources are not enough to meet our notability criteria (WP:GNG, WP:ARTIST) and my online search didn't reveal anything of use. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 09:24, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - For reasons stated above! NitRav (talk) 09:34, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 11:10, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete,Not a notable person. Page is created for self-promotion and self-publicity (see in Page history). No reliable references are available. Should be deleted urgently. Jussychoulex (talk) 12:51, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Neither in the jumble of primary sources and references which do not mention the subject, nor elsewhere, am I finding anything to demonstrate that the subject meets the notability criteria. AllyD (talk) 18:18, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. J04n(talk page) 00:25, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Milking the bull

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

Dictionary definition of non-notable neologism. I am One of Many (talk) 07:58, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDICT. It will need a fundamental rewrite. Maybe it's suited for Wiktionary that has the goal of creating a dictionary. Mr T ^(Talk?) ^{(New thread?)} 08:27, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per Dream Focus. When I commented here first new improvements didn't occur. Mr T ^(Talk?) ^{(New thread?)} 17:49, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The phrase is not a neologism. In the first place, it's not a single word and the words are all quite ancient. And in the second, a quick search shows the phrase to have in general usage back in 1848. Our policy on dictionary matters explains that we should group topics together by their meaning, not alphabetically. This is not achieved by deletion. If we wanted to consolidate the material, then we might merge into list of proverbial phrases and thence to the general concept of futility. What we should not do is simply destroy the link as this would be disruptive, disrespectful to the contributor and unhelpful to our readership. Warden (talk) 11:41, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have started improving the topic and have found notable usage back in the 16th century. The neologism claim is therefore utterly refuted. Warden (talk) 12:36, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is not simply a dictionary definition, but a proper article with content beyond that of a simple definition. And its certainly not neologism if its been around for centuries. Both reasons given to delete are thus not valid. Dream Focus 12:42, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because of Warden's expansion and referencing of the article, and reasoning in this discussion. Thanks. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:00, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Colonel Warden has adequately sourced the article, and the topic's notability is established. dci | TALK 17:06, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Colonel Warden has done a good job! The initial creation of this stub was dictionary like and, given a quick Google search, it appeared to be an introduction of a new meaning for this phrase in English by a translation that was not verified. I would also like to point out the "milking the bull" also has a perhaps more common and vulgar connotation in English today.--I am One of Many (talk) 18:00, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets GNG, also this is a gay slang phrase but I don't know how popular it is. Insomesia (talk) 02:29, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With several inline citations on a notable idiom, this article should be kept. I added {{talkheader}} {{WikiProject Linguistics|class=start|importance=Low}} to place it in the right project.--DThomsen8 (talk) 02:17, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Girls Aloud discography. J04n(talk page) 00:27, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Singles Box Set (Girls Aloud album)

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

The article consists of a track listing and nothing else. There are no sources in the article, and outside the article I found one source with 3 sentences. That's not significant coverage. Should be deleted as a failure of WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM. Till 07:33, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Girls Aloud discography. Adding details there of which singles were included and the bonus material should suffice. --Michig (talk) 08:52, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The discography page is a bad target because generally it should only include major releases such as albums and singles. However, I have merged the relevant information into the main Girls Aloud article as it fits better over there. Till 09:32, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - The discography page should include the complete discography, and already lists this release. --Michig (talk) 09:39, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm talking about the prose, obviously. Till 09:44, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Girls Aloud discography. It's simply a non-notable release. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 00:28, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect There's seldom anything to say about Greatest Hits albums: the songs are individually notable, but the combination is not. Unless there are substantial reliable sources discussing the selection, sequencing, and/or packaging, it's not notable. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:17, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Girls Aloud discography—as noted by Colapeninsula above, the compilation itself is not notable. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 23:56, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nominator withdrew their nomination and there are no arguments for deletion. (non-admin closure) TBrandley ^{(what's up)} 18:35, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NightWash

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

Contested PROD. Article is only a sentence of 6 words with 1 external link, no references. Article provides basically no encyclopedic information. NYSMy talk page 06:57, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll Withdraw the nomination, AfD got things going. :) NYSMy talk page 11:26, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not good enough. AFD is not an expand on demand service even if it functions as one. in future kindly ask for me to expand an article and you'll likely get a similar response. If its a very short article and has a translation tag on it then it's more than likely the article is notable.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 11:39, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite sure what you mean by 'not good enough'. AfDs can certainly be withdrawn, and there are no delete votes. NYSMy talk page 11:44, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I mean don't do this again without researching them before nomming them. Try asking creators to expand, if no reply within a week take it to AFD then if you're sure it can't be expanded.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 12:47, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it should be kept, but don't badger the nominator. There's no requirement to wait a week before nominating something, don't mislead users by pretending there is. Users sometimes disagree on notability/verifiability and that's what AFD is for. If an improved, solid article is the result, then everybody wins. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:25, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As I mentioned when I deprodded the article, numerous Google News sources seem to be available. There are likely to be others. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:11, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - We don't delete a stub articles because they are small, we expand the articles. However, a better job should have been done when article was created. Plenty of sources available to make it notable. Why does the title conjure up a porno show about a car wash... Bgwhite (talk) 07:48, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - is there somewhere we can request for someone to translate the content from the German Wikipedia article? NYSMy talk page 07:54, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Add the {{Expand German}} template to the article. Google translate does an adequate job to add some info from the German article. Bgwhite (talk) 08:48, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The template was already in place, the idea was that people come along and translate and expand them, not, erm, AFD them.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 10:48, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well it's been 18 months, so I'm thinking people don't like that idea. I personally prefer to create substantial, referenced articles instead of... laying work on other people. NYSMy talk page 11:04, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of sources. --John (talk) 10:59, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider adding them. NYSMy talk page 11:04, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am doing. Please consider doing the most basic research before nominating an article on a notable subject for deletion. --John (talk) 11:11, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree completely. Also your outlook Now isn't in the spirit of wikipedia. I'm not a fluent German speaking editor and don't feel confident translating from German without it being proof read. As for telling me I'm lazy and I expect other people to do the work, clearly you're a newbie or just ignorant of the editors who actually do most of the hard work around here. Yes, the articles would have been better written fully first time but at the time trying to reduce the big gap in coverage of notable articles seemed worthwhile. Unfortunately we have a very low German speaking participation or interest in German topics on wikipedia to translate. Above all it's an effort to try to work towards systematic bias on here which means we have articles on most American television episodes but didn't even have articles on notable German TV series let alone on the episodes.. ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 11:21, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable TV show airing in a major market for over a decade. Sourcing doesn't appear to be a problem. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:18, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Without sufficient reliable sources, it cannot be demonstrated that this glossary is not original research. The sources given here appear to be about the series, not necessarily about the terms that appear in this article. The arguments to keep were not convincing (WP:ITSUSEFUL, WP:OTHERSTUFF). I would be willing to restore the article for the purpose of merging some of its content to another article, or merging all of its content to another wiki, if desired. ‑Scottywong | confess _ 21:53, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Glossary of terms in the Jean le Flambeur series

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

An in-universe glossary for a two-book novel series. Problematic per WP:NOR (reads like original research), WP:NOT#PLOT (article is only plot summary) and WP:N (the topic of the terminology of this series is not, as such, the subject of coverage in reliable sources). Such content is better suited to fan wikis than to Wikipedia. Sandstein 06:33, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Entirely in-universe list more suited for a fan wiki than Wikipedia. JIP | Talk 11:02, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: A notice of this debate has been (tardily) posted at "WikiProject Glossaries" --Pete Tillman (talk) 20:03, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. A useful resource for a very complex and well-regarded series of novels. The glossary could be improved, and is actively being worked on by a number of editors. --Pete Tillman (talk) 03:29, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. This well-regarded and notable series of novels employs a large range of neologisms, which the author chooses not to explain in-story. The article provides a useful resource for struggling readers, and several reviewers of the novels have expressed such a need and welcomed the article's existence. [20][21] The article is not just plot summary, as the neologisms have to be explained to the novice readers and compared to the more familiar real-world terminology. Due to the addition of new material for the terminology in the more recent second novel, the article is in a draft stage and, as stated by Pete Tillman above, is in the process of being improved by several editors so as not to read like original research. Ex Novum (talk) 06:44, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It may well be useful, but as explained in WP:USEFUL we do not include information just because it is useful. If, as you say, the author has not explained these terms, but you are doing it here, then what you are engaging in is original research, which Wikipedia forbids. You should find another venue, such as a fan wiki, to publish such information (see WP:OUTLET for alternatives). Sandstein 09:29, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reference to the deletion essay -- but that's not policy. Deletion is always the last resort. Let's work instead on improving the article. Best regards, Pete Tillman (talk) 17:17, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the original research claim: although the author has not explicitly explained these terms, he has provided information indirectly throughout his novels, which when collated in the article serves to clarify what the terminology refers to. This is not something unheard of in Wikipedia: many articles on notable novels, TV series, etc., contain information which explains certain special terminology used in the story universe but that is not explicitly explained in-universe, or explained piecemeal. Ex Novum (talk) 07:16, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It would be helpful if you were able to supply quotes and/or page numbers for the inferences you made directly from the novels. Note that I'm not disagreeing with your interpretations, but it would be good to document the inferences if you can. If not -- well, I'm sure you know the rules re OR. And we do have some conflicts between the present text and newly-added secondary sources that will need to be resolved. TIA, Pete Tillman (talk) 04:33, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agree with Sandstein on points about WP:NOR and WP:N. If there are reliable third parties who have written about these terms specifically, add them as sources to the article. audiodude (talk) 01:39, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree with the strict need for reliable third parties. Note that some of the terms have been written about by third parties and have been cited in the article. If the concern is with unverifiable sources, we can remove the relevant information. Ex Novum (talk) 07:16, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The first "source" cited in the article, http://lareviewofbooks.org/article.php?id=1206, describes the need for this article ("Readers (myself among them) may therefore come to the end of [the novel] feeling more than a little lost") but does not, as such, document any of the terms themselves. The second and final source on the article, http://www.strangehorizons.com/2010/20100809/clute-c.shtml, mentions "Dilemma Prison, which is a kind of space-habitat". However the article states "Dilemma Prisons are built and maintained by Archons". Where in the secondary source is this information coming from? Delete. audiodude (talk) 01:10, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: editors favoring deleting this list article have raised some valid points, which should be addressed in the continued improvement of this glossary. However, please note that Wikipedia already hosts many similar articles, such as:
Chronology of roguelike video games
List of The Super Dimension Fortress Macross episodes
List of Doraemon characters
Individual writeups of each episode in the 24 seasons of The Simpsons (see Category:The Simpsons episodes}

It would seem that there is ample precedent for Wikipedia to host fan-related articles such as this glossary. Pete Tillman (talk) 08:47, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:WAX. We certainly carry articles related to pop culture, like about any other topic. But every article, no matter about what, must meet our inclusion criteria, which are not dependent on the article's topic. And there's no room for improvement if there are no reliable secondary sources to base this glossary on. Sandstein 09:09, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for linking to this interesting essay (which still isn't policy). The essay is nicely done, obviously by veterans of this sort of discussion. So this is more than pro-forma courtesy. And I believe everyone participating in this discussion is working to improve the quality of the encyclopedia. I do find it unusual that the first notification of problems with this article was a deletion request!

Secondary sources: I've added some, and another editor has fixed one of the cite errors Audiodude mentioned above . The John Clute review cited has a number of other discussions of Rajaniemi's wordplay and his use of what Clute calls a "prodigy house" or memory theater, that should be added to this glossary. Clute also notes (of Quantum Thief) that "synopsis is more or less impossible." [22]

Clute also has interesting material regarding "structurands through language games" that should be added, as well as an intricate discussion of Oubliette, the city that is the setting for most of Quantum Thief, that needs to be carefully parsed for use here -- Clute is a respected SF critic, but not a particularly transparent writer. Pete Tillman (talk) 22:49, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and continue adding more secondary sources. It looks like a number of references have been added since I worked on the article last, and it's improving over time. I'm not competent to work on it right now, not having access to the books, but when I do have them on hand I'll try to contribute more (if the article is still around). --Jim Henry (talk) 13:41, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Wikipedia has glossaries, and glossaries of fiction. This is a good example of the latter; the complaint is properly a complaint against all glossaries of fictional works (and should be made as a part of the policy making process, as those are in the process of being explicitly allowed.) MOS:GLOSS ... For a glossary of terms and characters used in a work or series of works of fiction (i.e. a fictional universe), the form Glossary of Work/Series/Franchise name terminology is preferred (again with redirects) since the terms form a terminological system that does not exist as terms in use outside that fictional context. Example: Glossary of His Dark Materials terminology. ... htom (talk) 13:55, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the AfD discussion for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/His Dark Materials terminology back in 2007. Result was KEEP. Pertinent to this discussion (and closing).

There was also a mid-2012 discussion of whether stand-alone glossaries at Glossaries discussion and resolution Glossaries were found to be "an acceptable form of standalone list. There was a strong support for the usability of significant glossaries ..." This resolution is pertinent to this discussion. -- Pete Tillman (talk) 20:39, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Additional secondary sources to consider

(subhead added to ease editing)

Review by Paul Di Filippo, another respected SF critic
Review by Helen Lowe, a novelist and critic
[23]: Critic and academic Adam Roberts (British writer) is bewildered at The Guardian, but has some interesting remarks in his review
Niall Alexander's review at Tor.com Note that, while Tor is the US publisher, this is an independent review.
Fractal Prince, Reviewed by Tori Truslow at Strange Horizons
Review by Rich Horton at SF Site (added quote for Quiet, cf to quietus). More there to use -- good review.
Review by editor and critic Andrew Wheeler , lots of good stuff here -- also for QT article.
[24]: Gary K. Wolfe reviews Hannu Rajaniemi at Locus magazine. Cited at List of Characters.
[more to come!]

I'll add to this list (and the article) as time permits (I'm out of spare time now) -- but it's fair to say that there are many RS discussions of the Rajaniemi novels that haven't yet been used here. And it is very likely that academic discussions of the the Jean le Flambeur series will be forthcoming. This is an interesting and challenging series of books, and our glossary is a worthwhile and encyclopedic attempt to help readers to understand the books. Let's not cut off a promising article with a premature deletion. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 22:49, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are probably secondary sources such as reviews that can be used to source a few of these terms, true, but nothing close to most of them. And if we were to delete what's unsourceable, we'd be left with a list with very few entries. Moreover, this does not address the problem that the topic of the terminology of this series has not, as such, been the subject of discussion by third-party sources and so fails WP:N. What we could do is integrate the definitions that can be sourced into a WP:WAF-compliant description of the series's setting in an article about the series. Sandstein 07:17, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lot of material available online for these two novels,which have made a big impact on the science-ficton world. With more to come, when the trilogy is completed. So we may do better than you think. We're currently up to 20 cites of 14 secondary sources, including many of SF's leading critics. I'm still working on it ;-] And the article has earned some praise online. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 03:45, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Online praise for this Wikipedia glossary

"While in most works of imaginative fiction, a glossary of terms is an indulgence, here one is almost a necessity. (And where the book itself fails you, Wikipedia comes to the rescue.)" --Thomas M. Wagner at Sfreviews.net

"....the one thing I wish that The Quantum Thief really had is a glossary. ... The helpful wikipedia entry Glossary of Terms in the Quantum Thief is useful, though a part of me wants to recommend a “pure” reading experience." -- Review: The Quantum Thief by Hannu Rajaniemi

"I found this on wikipedia - and think it might be very helpful whilst reading! Glossary of terms in Quantum Thief" -- Useful links for the Quantum Thief

Plus another 50+ mentions of the glossary online: Google search, mostly positive. There were a few grumbles about spoilers. But we seem to be filling a need. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 03:45, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely agree that the glossary is useful. I found it while reading the novels and looking some of the odder terms up. However, as I mentioned above, usefulness is not a sufficient criterium for inclusion on Wikipedia. Content must additionally be verifiable, not original research, and be about a notable topic. There is a lot of useful content on the Internet that does not belong on Wikipedia, such as phone books, or business directories, or street maps (see WP:IINFO). This glossary is another example. Sandstein 09:39, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closing argument to keep this glossary

It seems to me that the core of the argument for deleting this glossary is verifiability: WP:No original research. We've already added a substantial number of new secondary sources, and will add more as we find them -- but it seems unlikely we will be able to cite all of the material in the glossary. Some pruning seems likely to be needed -- but needs to be done with care, as I've seen very few actual errors. What we are likely to have, instead, is some (hopefully small) percentage of correct, but unreferenced, content.

A case could be made that, in an ideal world, it would have been better to publish this glossary somewhere else. But it was written and published here, starting back in 2010. Many readers have found it useful, links to the article are widely available, and a lot of future readers will be inconvenienced and annoyed if they click the published links and find the article deleted. Deletion won't serve our core purpose of improving the encyclopedia -- see the essays at WP:Purpose and Wikipedia:Does deletion help.

So it seems to me that the best approach is to improve the article, bring it as close as we can to the ideals of WP:V (and all of the WP:Five pillars) -- and to recognize that, in the real world, no article is perfect. If this glossary serves the greater good of informing and educating our users -- well, that's why we have WP:Ignore all rules. We do need to remember what we're trying to accomplish here (see Wikipedia:The rules are principles), and to always WP:Use common sense. Best regards, Pete Tillman (talk) 06:00, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While the discussion has been civil (always a pleasant surprise at AfD), I agree with Sandstein per WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Many of the definitions are very brief (some only a sentence), and I think this article is more appropriate on a fan site than here. All the best, Miniapolis 21:26, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, send to Wikia. That's what Wikia is for. Abductive (reasoning) 21:16, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:44, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Guy Pfeffermann

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:BASIC criteria. Zero textual indication of any noteworthy achievements. JFHJr (㊟) 06:09, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Apart from the lead section, all of the text in his article is copied from the sole (copyrighted) reference. AllyD (talk) 11:13, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've stubbed then rewritten the article with some references. The subject's various publications on development economics do pick up quite a number of citations (see Scholar search on given name or on "GP Pfeffermann"): I am not sure these are sufficient, or whether they should be deemed just to be by-products of his former jobs at World Bank institutions, but they are a potential indicator of some notability.) AllyD (talk) 11:41, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. The Globalist profile is non-trivial and reliable, but the other sources only quote him or mention him briefly. We need multiple sources to pass WP:GNG (a better guideline in this case than WP:PROF, I think). —David Eppstein (talk) 23:07, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 21:01, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Speerstra

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

Speerstra is a prospector who took part in a reality television show on treasure hunters. I don't see a whole lot of coverage of the television show and what I found is almost entirely written by Animal Planet which distributes the show. I see no coverage about Speerstra that is about him more than the show but this is reliable third-party coverage. That's still a little thin and I would recommend either deleting or creating an article for the television show and redirecting Sam Speerstra to it. Pichpich (talk) 05:54, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete unreferenced WP:BLP. LibStar (talk) 23:05, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the source the nom mentioned is trivial and I can't find any others. --Cerebellum (talk) 12:56, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Policy based consensus is clear here. Secret ^account 21:14, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Blue

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

nn per WP:ONEEVENT, we don't need to eulogize everyone executed by every country at all times. Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 05:16, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, no special circumstances in this case. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 09:46, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unfortunately, murderers are thirteen to a dozen and there's nothing that makes this one stand out. No lasting encyclopedic value. --Randykitty (talk) 09:54, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Murderers are thirteen to a dozen"? Where do you live? While murder happens more frequently than we would like, it still is a relatively infrequent crime. When the murder, murderer, and victim are NOTABLE enough to CONSISTENTLY make the news, they should be notable enough to stay. The fact is notability is treated subjectively here anyway. Many contestants of Survivor (and add many other reality TV shows), despite not doing much else in the entertainment industry have articles, while Teck Holmes is DENIED an article despite a laundry list of acting, musicial, and production/writing credits to his name. Again, just sayin' 76.105.101.68 (talk) 20:08, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Despite the glib attitude of the deletion enthusiasts, I would think that Blue's victims and family/friends of the latter might have a somewhat different attitude. Anyone who is concerned about supposedly civilized countries executing individuals would find a catalog of these of interest.--Sean O'Brian (talk) 19:09, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article is about a single murderer, it's not a catalog, and WP is not a directory. --Randykitty (talk) 22:17, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment #2 O'Brian watch it with the personal comments. I've clearly stated my reasons for this AfD, you have no reason to ascribe motive to me.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 12:38, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment #3 Kintetsubuffalo forgot to add in the bit he sent me: "As someone who's made many thousands more edits than your dozen in your six years here, I know what I am doing. I've clearly stated my reasons for this AfD, you have no reason to ascribe motive to me.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 02:51, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

" My posting ascribed no motive nor did it single anyone out. The main reason I don't do more edits are people who treat others with disrespect, particularly those do so on the predication that they are superior to others due to the *quantity* of their edits. Still not ascribing motive; simply describing behavior.Sean O'Brian (talk) 12:35, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment #3.1 O'Brian forgot to add that when he does edit, he writes things like "Despite the glib attitude of the deletion enthusiasts", which is in fact treating others with disrespect he was not first subjected to.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 15:27, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Calm down people. The "glib comment" wa posted directly below my own !vote and I don't feel personally attacked. And whatever beef you two may have with each other, please fight that out elsewhere, this is not the place for it. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 16:23, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Wikipedia has almost 5 million articles - on the English version - so I say this one stays. 1779Days (talk) 19:22, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please base your !vote on policy, otherwise it likely will be ignored by the closing admin. --Randykitty (talk) 22:17, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. WP is not a catalog. Nothing of encyclopedic note with this particular murderer. Mayumashu (talk) 20:08, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:PERPETRATOR. One of literally hundreds of murderers executed by Texas. RS coverage is strictly routine. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; Non-notable murderer while an argument could be made that anyone's crimes that are so heinous that an execution is ordered and carried out merits note, but alas, the death penalty is not reserved only for such special cases given the pure numbers executed. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:25, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is a notable executed murderer. If he is deleted, what makes other murderers notable? Someday, somebody will read information on him for a book report :-D. Seriously though, he is a notable individual, albeit for heinous circumstances, but he is high profile, and executions are NOT a dime-a-dozen as somebody else stated. There is a difference between a bad check writer, misdemeanant thief, and a murderer sentenced to DEATH! We do not have a thousand such articles. The death penalty is reserved only for the most HEINOUS of murders (or in Florida for the worst rapes of children under twelve). Nobody is being sentenced to the electric chair for jaywalking or a fist fight. Just sayin' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.105.101.68 (talk) 20:02, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing WP:PERPETRATOR. Texas executions have attained a sort of banality. Even if the murder is unspeakably brutal, it is not notable for that alone. Neither the perpetrator not the victim is otherwise notable, and there is no weird behavior that could result in him being a subject of pop culture. There is no significant question of the legal process leading to the execution. There is nothing to learn from his case. I suggested that one article on an executed murderer be kept because the condemned suggested that instead of being subjected to lethal injection that his body parts be harvested. They couldn't, so the issue became moot in his case -- but such could be part of a debate and have educational value. Wikipedia is clearly not intended to give perverse recognition to people who do horrific acts. Pbrower2a (talk) 20:44, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of individuals executed in Texas, 2010–, not notable enough for separate article but valid search term. Giant Snowman 10:55, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - His crime was not notable or notorious enough to deserve a separate article. --Zerbey (talk) 16:21, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This guy attempted to heinously kill two people at one throw of gasoline (an act that I will color as literally torture/murder) - that we are lucky enough that he only succeded in killing one person seems to reward him by not ascribing enough notarity--68.231.15.56 (talk) 13:39, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that you totally misunderstand the concept of notability as used on WP. That has nothing to do with good/bad/deserving/heinous/whatever. Please read the linked guideline in the previous sentence. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 14:23, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

as someone said above all murders probably fail WP:NOTABILITY - thus I ask you does this one too Lee Harvey Oswald?--68.231.15.56 (talk) 16:22, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PERPETRATOR "the execution of the crime is unusual" - seting fire to two people sounds fairly unusual to me--68.231.15.56 (talk) 16:27, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, not really. It's a rather frequent "weapon" in India to kill wives/daughters in law (often because the dowry was too low). And some murders are indeed obviously notable, because they generate lasting interest (like the murders of JFK, John Lennon, MLK, or Julius Caesar). Most murders, however, only generate some interest when they happen, perhaps a bit at sentencing, and then again a bit if there follows an execution. After that: zilch. That's all very much a one event thing without any lasting coverage. --Randykitty (talk) 16:41, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 00:28, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Careers in Mobile App Development

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

Procedural Nomination (Contested PROD). I am Neutral. Reason was: "Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought/essays." Vaca tion 9 04:37, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unreferenced original research. The "next big thing" is the deletion of this article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:44, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While the article is not well written, it's not clear that it is original research. The points in the article seem to follow those in the Times of India and the other article cited. The main problem is that the article really isn't about careers in app development; it's about growth of the market and which platforms might be most lucrative. We already have a Mobile application development article that covers a lot of these basics of app development and a List of mobile software distribution platforms article that goes into some detail in comparing platforms and market share. It is unclear if there is anything to merge into the other articles. I appreciate the author's effort in creating this article, \ but it seems that the article is redundant. --Mark viking (talk) 05:20, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All original research. Grammarxxx ^{(What'd I do this time?)} 06:34, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with the analysis thus far, particularly Cullen328's humourous take. Stalwart111 08:06, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think it is original research since it is mainly taken from Careers - Mobile application development - android - ios - windows - HTML5. I do agree that it is redundant regarding platform comparison. The topic doesn't make a whole lot of sense because mobile app development is a type of career in itself.--I am One of Many (talk) 09:09, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as obvious original research, personal essay. JIP | Talk 11:03, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above Frigid Ninja 17:47, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems to be written as a guide for selecting careers. That is what belongs at career fairs and not on Wikipedia. Thekillerpenguin (talk) 01:37, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unencyclopedic OR/Essay created by an SPA. Dialectric (talk) 09:27, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Discussions about redirecting or merging can continue on the article's talkpage. J04n(talk page) 00:29, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Diabos Vermelhos

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

No indication the topic meets notability requirements, no evidence of coverage in reliable independent sources. C 679 11:59, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. C 679 12:01, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not true, it's a supporters group that dates back to 1980's and supports benfica in numerous matches, including in amauter sports like futsal, handball and roller hockey. When there is derby, police creates special corridors so can supporters group's like diabos vermelhos pass thru rival group's and to the stadium. There not registed in CNID so they legally they cannot be supported by Benfica, so no Banners relating to DV inside Estádio da Luz. See recent news about them from 1 year ago. [25], [26], [27] Please inform yourself, do you go and nominate all of Ultras groups for deletion? While you're at it, don't forget MLS supporters groups like Midnight Riders (MLS supporters association).--Threeohsix (talk) 12:42, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly Cloudz679 doesn't what he's doing. BenficaNNossaPaixao (talk) 13:02, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please retract your comment, per WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. Giant Snowman 10:24, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - existence of other articles has no bearing on the existence of this one. That line won't work. Peridon (talk) 17:39, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I already added reliable sources, more can be added when I have time, especially about it's legal status. More opinions would be nice. An article with about benfica supporters, including it's supporters groups would be better, but since no one would do it, it's better to just retain this one. --Threeohsix (talk) 23:10, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to S.L. Benfica - no evidence of independent notability. Giant Snowman 10:24, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Shouldn't No Name Boys, another supporters group be deleted too? Shouldn't also the portuguese articles be deleted too? --Threeohsix (talk) 11:12, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - if you feel that other (related) topics do not merit articles then feel free to nominate them seperately. Giant Snowman 11:23, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why would why nominate an article I created, if I disagree with this one being deleted. I am just asking because they are not very different article, the relate to the same, an so does the portuguese wikipedia articles. I was hoping that a new article about benfica supporters would be created, using most of the diabos vermelhos article as evidence of the supporters group. I know that's not going to happen because there are very few editors who can create such an article, and even fewer who bother. --Threeohsix (talk) 11:40, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe that S.L. Benfica supporters is a notable topic, and has received significant coverage, then feel free to create it - I would then probably support merging all relevant articles on supporter's groups into that. Giant Snowman 12:24, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I won't create it, I just edit now. I was suggesting someone can create it, and using this article, plus No Name Boys article as a sub title maybe "Organized Supporters Groups". --Threeohsix (talk) 12:47, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If other teams' supporters have articles about them as Mr.Threeohsix suggested (the Midnight Riders example), then why is this particular one not allowed to wiki-exist? Just asking so that i know about the dos and don'ts around the subject.

Attentively - --AL (talk) 13:17, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 03:49, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG and WP:SPLIT. Supporters groups of major clubs are regularly noted by news outlets, this one isn't a exception. Diego (talk) 10:56, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Even though I agree with Diego Moya, I don't think all the supporters groups should have stand-alone articles, and I would support a merge into S.L. Benfica supporters if such an article existed. Mentoz86 (talk) 20:34, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Neither the OTRS request (which I have read) nor this discussion provides a reason why the article should be deleted. In the absence of such a reason, and this discussion's consensus that the article meets our basic inclusion requirements, it is kept. Sandstein 10:47, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nazie Eftekhari

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

Nominated on behalf of User:Manzanita22 for the reason of "Ms. Eftekhari does not wish to be featured on wikipedia." MBisanz ^talk 01:11, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There appear to be two problems with the argument for deletion: (1) there is no way to verify whether the subject has actually expressed an interest for deletion; and (2) that the subject does not wish to be featured on wikipedia is not a basis for deletion. In fact, Wikipedia permits articles for notorious criminals, which those subjects arguably would contest for the same reasons as above. WP:CRIME. On the other hand, there are several reasons favoring keeping the article: the subject is a leading business professional and the recipient of several awards including the 2011 International Immigrant Achievement Award from The International Leadership Institute, Woman of the Year by the Bloomington Chamber of Commerce, one of the Twin Cities' Women Changemakers, Small Business Person of the Year, Minnesota Advocates for Human Rights Award and the Woman of Distinction Award. These are all indicated on her corporate bio: https://www.healthez.com/nazie.html. In addition, the subject is actively involved in foreign policy issues. She is one the spokespersons for the former crown prince of Iran Reza Pahlavi (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/05/alireza-pahlavi-death-iran-shah), is a founder of a non-profit called the Foundation for the Children of Iran along with Pahlavi's wife (http://www.foundationforthechildrenofiran.org/?page_id=1103), is a director of the Iran Democratic Union with Pahlavi (www.facebook.com/events/174520709310424/) and participated at the Iran Democratic Transition Conference (http://www.flickr.com/photos/cistudents1/sets/72157627246226235/). Further, she is a prominent member of the Iranian-American community. She took leading positions in several leading Iranian-American organizations (http://www.paaia.org/CMS/1nazie-eftekhari.aspx and http://www.iranianamericanpac.org/leadership/p_eftekhari.shtml) and has been featured in a passing the torch of success event which highlights individuals identified as the most successful Iranian-Americans (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNrVBXXymDE). All of these reasons warrant keeping the article. Kabirat (talk) 11:18, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment OTRS agents can confirm the desire for deletion at 2013021510008221. This isn't a whim, but I cannot say any more about the contents.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 13:21, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 03:46, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject of the article easily meets WP:BIO through reliable sources that address her in detail. While Wikipedia takes the desires of its articles' subjects into account when notability is borderline or when the person is a non-public figure (WP:BLPDEL), neither is the case here. Eftekhari is one of the most visible Iranian-American activists. She is founder and CEO of a health care corporation and she created the first preferred provider organization. She serves on a number of boards, regularly receiving awards, giving speeches and interviews. Gobōnobō ⁺ ^c 18:40, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm seeing a little too much sourcing here for me to consider this borderline with respect to WP:BASIC. --j⚛e decker ^talk 07:14, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) LlamaAl (talk) 17:46, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Air Alsie

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

Non-scheduled corporate charter airline, which has not been the subject of any significant coverage in reliable, independent media and therefore fails WP:CORP --FoxyOrange (talk) 00:25, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The airline has been the subject of numerous reliable, secondary sources regardless of their language which is generally Danish I believe although there are certainly some English ([28], [29],[30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36],) thus the organization passes WP:GNG and WP:CORP requirements for significant coverage; it was notable enough to gain an IATA code. A historical reference, WP:NTRAN, is another which this subject also passes (not a valid argument I know but see my others). Some minor books references are available as well ([37]). There appear to be many other sources available for information, but most of these do not indicate significant coverage but could assist with the article's status. For what its worth, there is also an entry on this topic at many other Wikipedia websites in different languages according to Wikidata, Air Alsie. It could make for a good article in the future perhaps. TBrandley ^{(what's up)} 00:57, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 03:43, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the sources brought by TBrandley show that the article has potential. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 09:43, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No discussion in half a month. WP:NPASR. (non-admin closure) LlamaAl (talk) 00:22, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Dooley (editor)

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

Contested PROD for two reasons: 1) Placing a PROD on the article which reads in part "All biographies of living people created after March 18, 2010, must have references" would appear to be an improper usage of PROD for an article which existed long before that date; 2) It appears there is a previously existing contested PROD, from January 2006. Bringing it here for discussion, as AFD would be a more appropriate venue than PROD. I'm not at all in disagreement with PRODer and others who came before him/her who assert that notability or evidence thereof is sorely lacking. Dennis Miller could have made the same George Russell Weller joke, been a lot funnier, and have reached a far greater audience than this sort of farting in the wind on whatever.com. RadioKAOS – Talk to me, Billy 04:36, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Eclectica Magazine since that seems to be his only significant claim to fame. Mangoe (talk) 13:33, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:27, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:15, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable editor. I'm adding references and additional information to the article. IMHO the problem was with the article, not the notability (although I'll be the first to admit the subject is not the most notable of people, but I believe he does meet guidelines). If consensus doesn't agree with me then merge with the magazine article.--SouthernNights (talk) 15:42, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 03:41, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Quincy, Florida#Arts and culture. J04n(talk page) 11:00, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The subject of this article lacks notability as per WP:ORG. Its citation list consists only of links, and then only links to the organization's web site (which makes this information promotional), to Facebook pages (which are not references), and to personal biographies of its non-notable participants. I have checked the "What links here" and the only things which link here are regional lists of links (i.e., no actual articles link to this article). I could find no independent sources saying anything about this theatre troupe to indicate its notability, and cannot identify any criteria which justify its inclusion as a full article. KDS4444^Talk 16:44, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 16:59, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 16:59, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:03, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Quincy, Florida#Arts and culture. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:15, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Which might be fine if the article were about an actual, physical building-- which it is not. The article is about a community theater group that performs at the "historic" Leaf Theater, not about an actual theater. All of the other items in the Arts and Culture section mentioned above A.) refer to physical structures, and B.) have their own stand-alone articles, which this one will not once it has been deleted or turned into a redirect. KDS4444^Talk 09:21, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's currently no article on the Leaf Theater, which is mentioned there. This seems like it should be suitable for inclusion there, as, among othe reasons, redirects are cheap (cheaper than deletion in fact). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:39, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is just nothing on them anywhere to show that they are notable. 98.154.237.22 (talk) 17:46, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 03:40, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can find no reason to retain this as an article. OverseerDragon (talk) 08:25, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Quincy, Florida#Arts and culture. It is a serchable term [38], redirect and mention at Quincy, Florida#Arts and culture seems to be the best option. Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 10:00, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Per CSD G5 and SNOW — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:33, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actors who are well known for their role in series of action movies

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

I don't think this makes sense as an encyclopedia article. For one thing it's closer to trivia than encyclopedic content but more fundamentally, it's a list with murky and subjective inclusion criteria that poses major original research problems. For instance, I don't think Brad Pitt is "well known for his role" in the Ocean's Trilogy and Ocean's Eleven is more of a heist film than an action film anyways. Isn't Police Story the series that Jackie Chan is well known for? Maybe that's just in Hong Kong. And what's a series? Three, four? Is two enough? In the end, I don't see a way to into a proper, well-referenced list. Pichpich (talk) 03:22, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious delete as PRODder. _{N.b., my PROD was inexplicably removed by Pichpich before xe nominated the article for AfD.} —Theopolisme (talk) 03:27, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Inexplicably? Check the page history and it's obvious. I didn't remove your PROD tag and I failed to see it because Surfsbruce removed it a few seconds after you put it up and while I was writing my AfD rationale. Pichpich (talk) 03:48, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While Pichpich was indeed the one to remove the PROD, there is a perfectly logical explanation: Twinkle's AfD tool rather annoyingly removes PROD tags that were placed on the article while you were writing your rationale. To make matters worse, unlike when it removes a CSD tag, there's no warning whatsoever. I've accidentally removed PROD tags myself because of this. CtP (t • c) 04:07, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so there is a good explanation after all! This AfD might be a bit of a waste of time (it's true that a prod would have worked) but at least I learned something. But why would the otherwise fantastically well-designed Twinkle do something so counterproductive? It's actually smart enough to see the prod tag and remove it, why not ask for confirmation? It makes no sense. Pichpich (talk) 05:08, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep C:--Surfsbruce (talk) 03:30, 23 February 2013 (UTC) Surfsbruce (talk · contribs) blocked as sockpuppet of Mangoeater1000 (talk · contribs). CtP (t • c) 14:37, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Any particular reason why? AfD isn't a vote; we're trying to build a consensus based on the strength of the arguments. CtP (t • c) 03:51, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See: . If List of action film actors is keepable (list that only contains actors from my country-United States), then why not keep this list which contains famous action series from all over the world?--Surfsbruce (talk) 04:13, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of action film actors does contain non-Americans (I just went and picked a random one and he wasn't an American). Any perceived bias towards Americans in that article can be corrected by editing. Regardless, each article should be evaluated on its own merits. CtP (t • c) 04:23, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Subjective list without clear parameters. As noted above, what makes an actor "well" known for their roles? Without good list boundaries, it's not a helpful list. —C.Fred (talk) 03:36, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Inclusion boundariies are vague, and the article is redundant to List of action film actors, but this title is so convoluted that it's not worth redirecting. CtP (t • c) 03:51, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All of this list's contents are original research and personal analysis. The more appropriate list already exists at List of action film actors, which shouldn't contain this personal analysis; the title explains why this serves as biased content, in my opinion, unless there are significant, reliable sources on it. TBrandley ^{(what's up)} 05:06, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All original research, and it's not even complete. Grammarxxx ^{(What'd I do this time?)} 06:36, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per G5 (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mangoeater1000.) 72Dino (talk) 06:38, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - hopeless inclusion criterion; couldn't ever be complete; basically indiscriminate. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:46, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) LlamaAl (talk) 00:19, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Academy of Learning College

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

Only sources of information are PR articles audiodude (talk) 01:47, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES describes our consensus, namely, that degree awarding institutions are considered notable unless the article is a hoax. This institution exists as do reliable sources describing it, and the appropriate solution to any shortcomings in the article is to improve it rather than deleting it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:38, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per Cullen328. Not a great article, but the institution does appear to satisfy WP:ORG. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 18:13, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 06:04, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Joy Thomas

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

Previously deleted as a hoax. None of the references for the film Rose Guitarinaal show this actor. Even if correct a single role in a film does not show notability. Fails WP:NACTOR. Tassedethe (talk) 01:06, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please link to information supporting that this is a hoax? audiodude (talk) 02:03, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I had nothing to do with the previous deletion. Tassedethe (talk) 02:25, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; fails WP:NACTOR. Unable to find any sources online. —Theopolisme (talk) 03:20, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Rose Guitarinaal. The actor exists and will appear in Rose Guitarinaal per The Hindu, but that is just a trivial mention. Of sources given in the article, Spider Kerala seems to feature user-submitted content so it is not a reliable source, and this does not mention Thomas. --Cerebellum (talk) 12:52, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 22:01, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tyrant (Backyard Babies album)

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

This demo album doesn't seem to meet the general notability guideline. I searched Google Books and Google News archives with the term "tyrant" "backyard babies", which retrieved one book by Books LLC, which is most likely irrelevant, as well as these news articles. I've looked at all of them, and they all seem like false positives in one form or another. CtP (t • c) 00:31, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm reasonably sure that anything published by General Books LLC is simply a Wikipedia mirror. Chris857 (talk) 01:25, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts as well. CtP (t • c) 01:30, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—no sources to establish notability. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 17:53, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no coverage found (WP:GNG); appears to be a non-notable demo (WP:NALBUMS). Gong show 18:31, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Tyrant demo was released by Backyard Babies as an independant cassette. It was officially released within the 'From Demos to Demons' compilation. The liner notes for this compilation show the tracklisting, release date as well as the demo cover. I can provide scans and graphics if you require. :0) CtP (t • ) 11:01, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? Impersonation via signature? (The above comment was made by Antonyjackson (talk · contribs)). Furthermore, you don't seem to realize why we think the demo is non-notable: it doesn't seem to have received any significant, independent coverage in reliable sources. Providing scans won't help matters. CtP (t • c) 21:44, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't doubt that the cassette exists; I'm just unable to find evidence that it's notable per the above guidelines. Gong show 02:31, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:12, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aerogryf

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

This is a small airline operating on a non scheduled basis. The company has not been the subject of any significant coverage in reliable, independent media, thus failing WP:CORP. --FoxyOrange (talk) 00:05, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support. One would think that all airlines would be notable, but upon second thought, I think nom is right. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:45, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:43, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete per nom. Aircraft operators are not intrinsically notable and must satisfy WP:CORP; this one doesn't. YSSYguy (talk) 04:28, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't seem to have reliable coverage in accordance with WP:CORP, the only source I found was this trivial mention. --Cerebellum (talk) 13:03, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 22:26, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Flugdienst Fehlhaber

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

This flight school (maybe even an airline) fails the general notability guidline, and therefore also WP:CORP. It has not been the subject of any significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. It seems to have been a family business without any notable customers. Clearly, this company did not make a sufficient impact on the aviation industry to justify a stand-alone Wikipedia article. FoxyOrange (talk) 08:23, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 16:22, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:08, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:08, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:08, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:38, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:13, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - on balance, I think FoxyOrange is correct in his/her reasoning. Deb (talk) 14:15, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage in reliable sources. --Cerebellum (talk) 13:04, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Discussions for merging content can happen at the talk page. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:23, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnic Penalty

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

Subject is a non notable Neologism which was created by an account with no other edits other than to promote Reza Hasmath's 2012 book, and his Neologism. . Hu12 (talk) 01:59, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm not sure how new a phrase has to be to still be considered a neologism, but I was able to find 13 articles on HighBeam that use the term (The Economist, Daily Mail, The Independent, Jerusalem Post) as well as six books on Questia and about 40 newspaper articles on NewsBank, almost all UK newspapers. The oldest reference I found was from 1994. - Mr X 02:40, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or complete rewrite: term appears to be notable, but this is a bare rewrite of A Dictionary of Human Resource Management (2 rev ed.), see partial text here. Hairhorn (talk) 04:37, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Discrimination, the main article on the general concept. BTW is it always minorities that suffer an ethnic penalty? The article seems to be saying so. BigJim707 (talk) 22:15, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The term has been around for 20+ years and is widely used in commonwealth countries (I am a PhD candidate looking at this topic). Merging it to discrimination does not do justice to the term as it is more about non-discriminatory reasons, like not having the same social networks as non-minorities, and so forth. To answer BigJim's question, the ethnic penalty generally refers to visible ethnic minorities. The article has been edited to ensure hairhorn's concerns are addressed. Oxfsoc (talk) 03:42, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but perhaps merge. The current version seems adequately referenced, the phrase seems established as a term of art, and the current version has been rescued from copyright issues. I'm not certain there's a whole lot more to be said about this phrase, in which case it seems related enough to discrimination to be successfully merged without undue weight, but that's outside of AfD's bailiwick. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 04:45, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:09, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:13, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There are plenty of hits in third party sources for the term and the article has some of said sources properly cited. audiodude (talk) 02:26, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - to Discrimination. This is merely a neologism for the encyclopedic concepts of Employment Discrimination and Wage Discrimination based upon race. As such, it is a fork and should be merged away. Carrite (talk) 19:22, 23 February 2013 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 19:24, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Discrimination as per previous suggestions. - Mr X 19:56, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-I agree with users Oxfsoc and Audiodude. Notability undoubted.--Soroboro (talk) 23:26, 23 February 2013 (UTC) — Soroboro (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep- For the reasons above.--Goldenaster (talk) 14:16, 25 February 2013 (UTC) — Goldenaster (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 procedural close. with no prejudice against speedy renomination if the merged content isn't kept elsewhere. A merge discussion should probably take place on a destination article talk page. (non-admin closure) -- Trevj (talk) 02:04, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of bus routes in Peterborough

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

List already included in List of bus routes in Cambridgeshire therefore not needed. Wilbysuffolk (Talk to me!) 08:32, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As you've merged it, the page's history is needed for attribution, so unless List of bus routes in Cambridgeshire is also deleted at least a redirect would be needed, however maybe it should stay as a separate page as Peterborough and Cambridgeshire are separate local authorities for transport. Peter James (talk) 01:10, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - the rationale given isn't obvious here. As above, they are separate LAs so why merge the content from one into another and then put one up for deletion? Now, there are lots of reasons for potentially deleting lists if buses - they are generally unencyclopaedic, but for an editor to simply merge one into another and then go to AfD rather than through the merge or redirect process is procedurally dubious in my opinion. On those ground, without prejudice for deleting both articles in question based on notability, I oppose with an undoing of the edits to the list for Cambs at the same time. Blue Square Thing (talk) 12:28, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TBrandley ^{(what's up)} 01:21, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:11, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:12, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Oppose per Blue Squre Thing. I would support undoing the merge and putting both articles up for deletion as they fail notability and What Wikipedia is not policies. They also look outdated and misleading.--Charles (talk) 10:03, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close. If the content has indeed been merged into List of bus routes in Peterborough then it is necessary to retain the page so that the attribution history of the edits is preserved; the page thus cannot be deleted. The page would ordinarily be redirected with proper linkage to and from the target article as described at Wikipedia:Merge#How_to_merge. No opinion on the merits of the merge but as it is evidently controversial, it should be undone and a merge discussion started to determine consensus as described at Wikipedia:Merge#Proposing_a_merger. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:31, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTTRAVEL. Lists like these should be transwikied to Wikivoyage rather than left on Wikipedia. Imzadi 1979 → 00:15, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 20:59, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WaltAir

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

Per WP:CORP, a company is considered notable once it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. With WaltAir, a small air taxi enterprise, this does not seem to be the case. --FoxyOrange (talk) 00:11, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:41, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:12, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Aircraft operators are not intrinsically notable and must satisfy WP:CORP; this one doesn't. YSSYguy (talk) 04:17, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I couldn't find any reliable sources for this article. --Cerebellum (talk) 13:06, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:37, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stuttgarter Flugdienst

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

This is a corporate charter airline with a fleet of small aircraft which in my opinion fails WP:CORP. It has not been significantly covered in any reliable, independent sources. --FoxyOrange (talk) 00:19, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:10, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, aircraft operators are not intrinsically notable and must satisfy WP:CORP, and this doesn't. YSSYguy (talk) 04:09, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This Google News search turns up quite a few sources. --Cerebellum (talk) 13:07, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Cerebellum, the link you provided does not seem to work. With me, a google news search does not reveal anything. Could you please give the exact article(s) that you think establish notability? --FoxyOrange (talk) 13:26, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete using a translator, those sources mentioned above looks like press releases or passing mentions. Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Secret ^account 22:46, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Secret ^account 22:33, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The International Playboys

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

non-notable Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 09:04, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Here's an article that indicates they might be notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:22, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:23, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 February 9. Snotbot t • c » 01:05, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Not a big-time band to be sure, but there appears to be a bit of coverage of their work: here, here, and perhaps a few others if these write-ups can be verified. Gong show 08:57, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 00:58, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:09, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Fairly marginal but I think the MU Maneater article listed above and the Straight.com article could establish notability on their own, and unless we assume that the band's press section is completely fabricated, they've been reviewed pretty widely. --Cerebellum (talk) 12:45, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 20:58, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FocalScope Email Ticketing Solution

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

Non-notable product Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:48, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say Keep. --Yrtneg T 03:18, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FocalScope has been recognised for changing how emails are being managed in a business environment. This article in AsiaOne (Feb 12, 2008) is just one example[39]. It has also been implemented by global companies such as DHL, SingTel, American Express and Radisson Hotels to make their daily operations more efficient. I would say that changing how such an important communication channel such as email is being managed is notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.185.121.38 (talk) 07:12, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 18:02, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 18:02, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 18:02, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 18:02, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There does not seem to any journalistic or academic sources to support notability. AsiaOne.com is a marketing/advertising portal according to their about page: "AsiaOne connects marketers to a desirable demographic that represents the cream of online audiences." Unless it is determined that AsiaOne.com is a reliable source, or other reliable sources are found, the software does not meet the notability requirements of WP:NSOFT. - Mr X 13:31, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, advertising: FocalScope's features allow users to manage large amounts of emails and tasks, collaborate, share information and monitor performance across departments and offices. Measurement and tracking of performance is based on customizable criteria such as reading time, response time, enquiry state and enquiry type....FocalScope is offered either as a Software as a service version or as an On Premise version. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 05:10, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, AsiaOne is an on-line news portal property of the Singapore Press Holdings Ltd. Co. It carries headlines news from The Straits Times and The Business Times, and covers a number of topics, including news, stock markets, real estate, trade, conventions and economic statistics[40]. In addition, FocalScope has been recognized by other reliable media channels - such as Borsen (Denmark's leading newspaper[41]) and channelnewsasia ("channelnewsasia.com provides a premier source of real time news, videos, information and entertainment features. The satellite footprint of the channel stretches across the Middle East, South Asia, Southeast Asia, Northeast Asia and Australia")[42].— Preceding unsigned comment added by Samira Holma (talk • contribs) 15 February 2013 10:52 — Samira Holma (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:12, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:07, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 0 hits never seen that before. Just one of many .... like osticket, opensupports and count less others that we dont have pages for because of notability. Moxy (talk) 05:46, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, barely. I continued MrX' good work in cleaning out promotional content from the article. It is now quite short. I looked hard for references beyond those in the article and found none. Borsen looks like a reliable source. Most of the article is behind a paywall, but from the initial paragraph, it is likely in depth. The AisaOne article reads like a press release, but the Channel NewsAsia article reads like a news article, with discussion of privacy concerns about the monitoring aspects of the software. From the about page, Channel NewsAsia looks like a TV news channel. I could believe that it is an independent, reliable news source. So there seem to be two reliable sources with enough depth for the topic, making it barely above threshold for general notability WP:GNG. A barely notable topic with an article that has been mostly neutralized with respect to promotional content suggests that the article should be kept, barely. --Mark viking (talk) 06:10, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - just not enough coverage in reliable sources to carry it over the threshold (and of course the very title is a violation of WP:PROMOTE (and of course WP:SOLUTION). --Orange Mike | Talk 18:00, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG, insufficient sources to demonstrate notability. ukexpat (talk) 19:02, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - every appearance of being promotional. Deb (talk) 14:18, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There are legitimate arguments on both sides here with the delete side pointing out the games played by Mr. Minter are insufficient to meet the special notability guidelines for athletes while the keep voters point out the news coverage is sufficient to pass the general notability guideline. While some have argued that this news coverage is fairly routine in nature, it is still coverage that is sufficient to satisfy the basic verifiability requirements, so there is no policy mandating deletion in the absence of a consensus here. Sjakkalle (Check!) 20:21, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DeMario Minter

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

Never played a game at the NFL level, doesn't seem to pass notability. Wizardman 06:01, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 16:23, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep more than enough news articles to pass WP:GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:45, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough on the others I've nominated, but looking through his news sources I'm not seeing any major mentions that would make him article worthy, just passing ones. Wizardman 17:29, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I just clicked on the "news" link above and it brought me hundreds. many are behind a paywall, but even with the summaries you can verify that most of them are about this individual.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:56, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:47, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:07, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - yes there are lots of hits on Google, but most seem to be rather trivial mentions and plus we have WP:GOOGLEHITS...the feature article I found was from a team website, so it's not third party and consequently cannot be used to confer notability. The only article that I see that would count is this one. I can't tell if the ones behind a paywall would be more than just trivial mentions; if someone has a subscription to any of the news sites in question and can prove me wrong, I'll be happy to change my vote. Go Phightins! 00:43, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Fails WP:NGRIDIRON since he never played a professional game, but meets WP:GNG per CBS College Sports, Athens Banner-Herald, Scout.com, Cleveland Leader. --Cerebellum (talk) 12:36, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I wouldn't consider those sources strong for WP:GNG, just regular WP:ROUTINE coverage, two of those articles are more based on Calvin Johnson and that he's the "next" cornerback to face him in a college game, one is a knee surgery, and the last one was a regular signed with the team source. It needs better sources here. Secret ^account 22:37, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's far above the low bar set by WP:ROUTINE -- it's not a wedding announcement or a box score, for example.--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:11, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to If You Leave (album). --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 08:47, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Smother (song)

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

No reliable sources. No assertion of notability. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 22:27, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to If You Leave (album). Merge if necessary. The Steve 06:54, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vaca tion 9 00:04, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to If You Leave (album). This song has received some attention [43][44][45][46] but I'm not convinced there's enough material to warrant an individual article, as any info can be easily contained within the album's (or artist's) page. Gong show 18:36, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to If You Leave (album)—fails WP:NSONGS. There hasn't been a lot of media discussion, but whatever we have from reliable sources (some of which have been provided by Gongshow) can be incorporated into the parent article. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 00:09, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Oświęcim Synagogue. J04n(talk page) 13:46, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Szymon Kluger

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

I'm not seeing anything that indicates this Holocaust victim did anything significant other than survive. Fails WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Clarityfiend (talk) 17:11, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to Oświęcim Synagogue. I found some references which I added, and there's probably more in Polish. But since his house is now part of the museum complex including the Oświęcim Synagogue and Jewish Center, it would be a logical merge target if he's still not quite notable. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:41, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:02, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vaca tion 9 00:03, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep/no consensus. MezzoMezzo delete comment is not policy based, and the keep commentators mentioned it can be sourced. But a debate needs to be mentioned about this as a reliable source, but that is a cleanup issue that needs to be discussed on the talk page. If not bring it back here. Secret ^account 22:41, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Kirati kings

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

No sources. No links. GeorgeLouis (talk) 00:59, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find other sources. Please help to find it as this is historical kings of Nepal. Thanks Ashishlohorung (talk) 00:57, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Ashishlohorung. Where did you get your information? Is this list something you compiled yourself? Where elsewhere can other readers find this same information? GeorgeLouis (talk) 01:48, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did you not notice the references section at the bottom of the list? The website is questionable as a reliable source, but the book at least should have been looked into further before listing this at AFD under the incorrect claim that there are no sources. postdlf (talk) 17:40, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vaca tion 9 00:03, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Maybe the tag should be "Inline' instead. I can go with that. Normally an editor who has access to a book should at least the page numbers of the book. Thanks for writing. GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:52, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's a list containing items of which not a single one has it's own article on Wikipedia, and this article is supported only by a singular source. It's a pointless waste of space. MezzoMezzo (talk) 11:00, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- article certainly to improve with contents/sources. It seems a notable topic.--Knight of Infinity (talk) 17:41, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The information is verifiable per this, and in my opinion highly notable. --Cerebellum (talk) 12:30, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is now a source for this list, and at least some of the kings may be Notable enough for their own articles. GeorgeLouis (talk) 20:15, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 09:01, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Public asset management

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

Jargon-filled article with obvious COI and poor sourcing; part of a string of promotional articles on various applications of the products of the undoubtedly very notable ESRI. there is nothing that sets this topic apart from the other articles on Asset Management especially Enterprise asset management & Infrastructure asset management, articles which probably need to be looked at also. I am not proposing a merge, because there's no mergeable content, and I'm not proposing a redirect, because its an unlikely search term. DGG ( talk ) 22:22, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:00, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vaca tion 9 00:04, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; PR mud puddle. Or something of that ilk. _{WP:COI, etc.} —Theopolisme (talk) 03:22, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The fact that ESRI is likely the dominant GIS system used by municipalities in the US doesn't change the fact that this article is largely about non-neutral POV pushing for an ESRI GIS-based asset management system for these institutions. The topic itself shows some hits in GScholar, for instance, [47] and [48], but none of these emphasizes GIS or ESRI. It is not clear to me that "public asset management" is a separate topic unto itself, and different from asset management as applied to public institutions. Perhaps best to start over, per WP:TNT. --Mark viking (talk) 04:42, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT or WP:COATRACK. I can't tell if it's actually spam masquerading as a real article, because it's so poorly written. Bearian (talk) 18:40, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete spam MarioNovi (talk) 07:58, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. You can discuss about a possible move in the talk page. (non-admin closure) LlamaAl (talk) 00:16, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chama cha Kiswahili cha Taifa

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

I don't think this organisation passes WP:ORG. This article was PROD-ed, but I challenged the PROD saying that the reference in the article had some good coverage. The problem is that the author of that coverage, Kimani Njogu, is also the founding chair of the organisation, and so the source isn't independent of the organisation and therefore can't count toward notability. After I noticed this, I considered reinstating the PROD, but I think AfD is a better venue because there are sources in Swahili that I don't have the language skill to evaluate, and there are also a couple of mentions of the organisation in scholarly books, e.g. this and this (although I don't think the mentions are substantial enough to count as "significant coverage" per the notability guidelines). — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 15:14, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:20, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:20, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:20, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme (talk) 21:09, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I conclude that discussion in academic books, discussion of the acronym CHAKITA, plus several mentions in the Swahili language, add up to notability. As the group exists to promote Swahili as an alternative to English, it seems likely that the most in-depth coverage would be in that language. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:35, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vaca tion 9 00:00, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It appears that the initiatives of the organization CHAKITA and its head are the subject of multiple independent pieces of published coverage, exemplified by THIS NEWS PIECE FROM SABAHI ONLINE, "Kenyans Call for the Use of Swahili During Second Presidential Debate." Carrite (talk) 19:29, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If this ends a keep, the name of the article should be changed to National Kiswahili Association-Kenya, which appears to the common English name used by scholars. See H-NET. Carrite (talk) 19:35, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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