Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 November 17

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 16 November	18 November >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. SarahStierch (talk) 00:44, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jack dean[edit]

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

No indication of notability, no significant coverage in reliable sources.Was prodded for those reasons; prod removed by the author without improvement. Huon (talk) 23:23, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:03, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:55, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails NFOOTBALL.204.126.132.231 (talk) 21:07, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Fenix down (talk) 11:00, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and snow close – non-league football player, absolutely nowhere near the necessary criteria for a Wikipedia article. C 679 11:53, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:NFOOTY. No professional appearances. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:20, 20 November 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 15:14, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ultra Seven monsters[edit]

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

This is an overly in-depth list of plot details that does not need to exist in its current form. The characters mostly only appear in a single episode each, so an episode list would be the ideal place to describe them as usually done with non-reoccurring plot elements. There is no real use in merging the information or converting this article due to the nature of the writing, so someone would be better off to start from scratch were they to make an episode list. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Ultraman Mebius monsters for a similar list from this series. It also appears that someone has added content from a deleted article (‎Miclas into List of Ultra Seven monsters#Miclas), so someone may want to delete those edits or whatever is usually done. TTN (talk) 21:58, 17 November 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 November 17. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 22:02, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep we don't delete articles because an editor believes they have overly detailed plot details. We work to improve such articles. The Ultra universe is second only to Doctor Who as a TV series. There's been a recent campaign to remove this material, with the disingenuous argument made that since other material has been removed by merger into this article, this article should be deleted as well. That's absurd, and contradicts the prior merger votes. μηδείς (talk) 22:13, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Articles are deleted because they do not meet policies and guidelines. There is a limit to the amount of plot we can detail per WP:PLOT, and this level of depth is going overboard. Character lists are one thing, but excessive detailing of minor plot elements is something for Wikia, not a general encyclopedia. The supposed importance of the series does not matter, nor does the idea of improving it without any basis. If there are reliable, third party sources providing real world information for the topic, then the topic may be viable, but it is overly excessive until then. TTN (talk) 22:19, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a list that was created rather than having all the material placed in the ultraseven article. Merging it back there would be absurd. We have also just had material from various other articles merged into this one as a result of deletion discussions. Given the material is about monsters from TV shows, I am not sure what you would not consider a "plot element". This material is no different from List of Doctor Who universe creatures and aliens or List of Middle-earth animals or List of Middle-earth peoples. It is all plot by the nature of the material. μηδείς (talk) 22:41, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The content should not exist on this site in the first place, so there is no need for it to be merged anywhere unless converted into an episode list (though it would not be very useful in doing such). Articles supported by reliable sources to show their real world significance are those that need to be detailed, while others, what I'm describing as plot elements, are simply elements used in plot summaries without any other significance. Things that appear only in a single episode, chapter, segment, ect of a piece of fiction don't need to be listed outside of describing that segment, and the fact that there are other similar lists does not mean this one needs to exist. TTN (talk) 22:50, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- excessive, unsourced plot summary. Does not meet WP:V or WP:N, so is unsuitable for a standalone article. A merge is inappropriate because the potential merge targets already have more than enough plot summary and would only be made worse by the introduction of large amounts of badly-written, unsourced junk. Reyk _YO! 23:29, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Primary sources are fine for factual descriptions of their own contents. We do not need a source beyond the credits of Star Wars to say Carrie Fisher played Princess Leia or that the Death Star was blwon up at the end. Notability comes from the main article the list was created from. "Junk" exposes the bias here, just as TTN's bad faith edit deleting the entire page and redirecting it to an irrelevant closed deletion discussion about a different series. μηδείς (talk) 00:37, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong. List articles do not WP:INHERIT notability from the parent, and it is not acceptable to make baseless and false accusations of bad faith and bias against people. Describing the contents as "junk" is just calling a spade a spade. Reyk _YO! 01:26, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are two problems with this list. The first is that it's in remarkably poor shape. That, by itself, isn't a valid criteria for deletion. The second problem is that the selection methodology for the list is not in line with established practices. A "list of characters in a fiction franchise" type article does not list every minor character that has ever appeared in the franchise; instead it restricts itself to the main characters and the recurring, plot-important secondary characters. Look at List of Naruto characters, for example. That series is massive, and that is reflected in the the number of characters in that list. However every character in that list is either a major recurring character with significant face time across several books/seasons, or a major character that appears only in one plot arc but has an important role and significant face time across that plot arc. When putting together that list, there are dozens of chracters that didn't make the cut. Based on my skimming through the various Ultraman articles on Wikipedia, there are perhaps four or five monsters that appear in more than two episodes, and the rest are "monster of the week" type characters. Those four or five should be merged with the characters at Characters — The Ultra Garrison in a List of Ultra Seven characters article that shows a proper degree of selectivity. Whether that happens or not, as a topic, this article is not suitable for inclusion and should be deleted. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:48, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Sven Manguard. Steel1943 (talk) 03:00, 24 November 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 speedily deleted (G12) by Jimfbleak. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 00:15, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bullet Tooth Records[edit]

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

Poorly sourced, highly promotional article about a record company. I am unable to find any reliable sources with which to establish notability per WP:ORG - Mr X 21:58, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. Copyvio and close paraphrasing of multiple sources. Intro, Affiance, Dead Icons, Death Ray Vision, First Blood, etc. Current article is also pure promotion. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:41, 18 November 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. SarahStierch (talk) 00:46, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Yellow Wallpaper (film)[edit]

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

Non-notable film, failing both WP:N and WP:NOTFILM. Requires significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. None provided, nor found in Google News. References listed mention film only trivially, without providing significant coverage. -- Wikipedical (talk) 21:46, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment: There seem to be enough actual notables part of this film, that finding sources speaking toward the film should be do-able. Will be looking further before offering an opinion as to deletion. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 04:28, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Even with those links, there is no significant coverage of this film found in Google. -- Wikipedical (talk) 17:17, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with "non-notable" label; I found nothing on Google, and the references provided appear to be a desperate attempt at establishing any kind of notability. Rockypedia (talk) 20:02, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete until or unless commentary and analysis in reliable sources is forthcoming. It was reasonable (not "desperate") to think that the involvement of notables might have attracted some press coverage, but I found none worth using. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:27, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NF. Betty Logan (talk) 12:43, 20 November 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 Already deleted. SarahStierch (talk) 00:46, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Tripwire[edit]

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

Notability, COI - self-promotion Semitransgenic _talk. 21:43, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as spam. -- Whpq (talk) 17:47, 21 November 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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:02, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Superman (1997 film)[edit]

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

Completely unsourced. Unable to find any evidence that it meets WP:GNG and WP:NF. Betty Logan (talk) 21:41, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is part of Malayalam cinema history. Of course, offline sources will be hard to read. Not to mention a potential plot that may be notable at the start. It needs cleanup, and its notability doesn't vanish. Well, I'm not fully aware of this film, but reviews don't seem necessary. They just add weight to balance the quality, but the film has cast well-known to Malayalam audiences, especially in India. George Ho (talk) 23:17, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And you don't want to nominate Love, Love, Love (1974 film), The Unforgettable Character, Rhythm of the Wave, and My Native Land (film). Do you? They don't have reviews at this point, but they are already notable, mainly due to Teresa Teng's songs and notable cast and potentially notable plot. George Ho (talk) 23:24, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Will you please enlighten us to which part of WP:GNG or WP:NF the article satisfies then, which lays out a strict criteria for notability. We don't have an article for every American or British film even though they are part of "cinema history", if they don't have signicant coverage in reliable sources. I'm sorry George, this is a WP:ILIKEIT vote rather than an argument for the article meeting our criteria. Betty Logan (talk) 23:25, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Notability is not temporary, and other portions of WP:notability. Of course, there is Wikipedia:Verifiability#Notability. Third-party sources can be found offline. George Ho (talk) 23:35, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let's have a source then; it's not unreasonable to request a source in a deletion discussion. I haven't been able to find a single, reliable source that confirms the existence of this film, let along the participation of the cast and crew. Betty Logan (talk) 23:42, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon Betty, but numerous reliable sources do "prove" the existence of this film... all a matter of looking. Their not being used to expand and source the article on this 1997 Indian film might seem more matter for regular editing and less one for deletion. WP:EDIT, WP:CSB, WP:WIP, WP:UGLY, WP:DEADLINE, WP:SOFIXIT. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:27, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

And of course, since non-English news article for Indian films of the 90's have not become searchable though Google, we look to other search engines Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:27, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The fact that the director and cast of this film are notable convinces me that there are probably several offline sources from the film's country of origin that might not be easily accessible. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 23:34, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per a reliable source listing the film as among this directing team's "hits and superhits". IE: IBN writing "The director-duo has been together for 17 years and made about 23 films, the majority of them hits and superhits. These include 'Puthukottyile Puthu Manavalan', 'Superman', 'Punjabi House', 'Thenkasipattanam', 'Chathikkatha Chanthu', 'Pandippada', and 'Hallo'." It may take some time and the willing participation of Indian editors with the ability to search for non-English coverage, but I believe this is notable enough for inclusion herein. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:33, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Malayalam language sources. I am not entirely happy about the nominating editor's deletion of "it was the highest grossing film of the year" immediately prior to nomination. If there's a issue it's more normal to add a (cn) tag. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:17, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would technically be within my right to remove everything that is unsourced in this article (there is no requirement to tag unsourced content—nor is it normal practice either—it is simply a courtesy), but as it is I only actually deleted two lines that I checked and are demonstrably false. It's not particularly relevant to the AfD either, so if you wish to discuss it further then feel free to drop a message at my talk page. Betty Logan (talk) 09:43, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I presume the deleted article statement was only claiming the biggest grossing Malayali film of 1997? What's the evidence that the claim is false? In ictu oculi (talk) 15:24, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If it's an uncited claim, I would say that for a pretty significant claim such as "highest grossing" anything, the burden of proof would be on the person making that claim, and if another editor looks for, and finds no evidence supporting such a claim, deletion of that statement is the right thing to do. I think this article should be a Keep, for now, but the highest-grossing claim doesn't factor into my decision, as there's no evidence supporting it. I have no problems with anyone deleting that. Rockypedia (talk) 19:58, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I checked BoxOfficeIndia.com and a Wiki list of Malayalam hits (which included films from 1997) and the film didn't appear anywhere. While it may not be conclusive it wasn't a hit, it convinces me it is very unlikely it was the number 1 film of 1997 (either in Indian or Malayalam film) so I removed the claim on those grounds. Betty Logan (talk) 03:24, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This movie by the famous director duo Rafi Mecartin and casts some of the biggest actors of Malayalam cinema was a hit movie. You cannot expect to see online reviews of the 1997 Malayalam movie. Salih (talk) 17:53, 19 November 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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:02, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DignityUSA[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NCORP. No sources. I think it would be better to start fresh. the one sean 21:19, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The ONE National Gay and Lesbian Archives holds "47.8 linear feet (94 archive boxes)" of records and information on DignityUSA, from its founding in 1969 through the 1990s. Within that material are undoubtedly any number of independent reliable sources that establish the notability of the organization. That sources are difficult to access does not obviate their existence. There are also any number of other reliable sources that discuss the group but they are difficult to tease out online because a) they were created before the routine digitization of sources and b) the word "dignity" leads to a lot of false positives. Pre-Internet subject matter is often extremely hard to source and LGBT history, which has been routinely erased and disappeared, even more so. "Better to start fresh" indicates that the nominator believes that materials exist upon which an article can be built, thus there is no valid reason for deletion. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 00:21, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Added information from reliable source about the group as it relates to the Vatican's declarations on homosexuality. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 04:46, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, literally hundreds of good secondary sources out there. — Cirt (talk) 06:20, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A myriad of sources are readily available and easy to find with the most modest of Google searches. Sportfan5000 (talk) 11:15, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per the other users. This is a major national group that has plenty of sources available on all sides of the discussion surrounding these issues in Roman Catholicism. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:43, 21 November 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. SarahStierch (talk) 00:54, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edinson Rincón[edit]

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

Minor league baseball player, does not meet notability requirements . Currently not associated with any team. Spanneraol (talk) 20:24, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spanneraol (talk) 20:25, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He is not notable.--Yankees10 20:39, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet GNG or BASE/N. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:34, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails BASE/N....William 14:31, 23 November 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. SarahStierch (talk) 00:55, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

EC-Council Certified Secure Programmer[edit]

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

Article about a technical certification supported only by COI references and affiliate advertising websites. This is one of several non-notable certification articles linked from EC-Council, which seem to exist to promote a commercial interest without imparting any real encyclopedic value. Note the advertisement image in the article. I am unable to find any reliable sources with which to establish notability. - Mr X 20:09, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nor do I see sources for notability . The individual article isn't promotional , but in the context of EC-Council, the overall group might be so considered. DGG ( talk ) 23:26, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and ditto to Certified Hacking Forensic Investigator EC-Council Network Security Administrator EC-Council Certified Encryption Specialist as duly nominated. Even Certified Ethical Hacker is questionable; all are just promoting the group's courses. Might even qualify for a speedy due to the imperative used in the captions, telling the reader they should buy the company's products. At first I thought it might have something to do with the European Commission but of course it does not. There might be one or two sources that could be gathered from the other articles I suppose, so a merge into EC-Council would also be appropriate. It has been tagged for notability for over two years! W Nowicki (talk) 17:06, 20 November 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. SarahStierch (talk) 00:56, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Certified Hacking Forensic Investigator[edit]

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

Article about a technical certification supported only by COI references. This is one of several non-notable certification articles linked from EC-Council, which seem to exist to promote a commercial interest without imparting any real encyclopedic value. Note the advertisement image in the article. I am unable to find any reliable sources with which to establish notability. - Mr X 20:05, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete see ../... Certified Secure Programmer W Nowicki (talk) 17:14, 20 November 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. SarahStierch (talk) 00:57, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

EC-Council Network Security Administrator[edit]

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

Article about a technical certification supported only by COI references and one broken reference. This is one of several non-notable certification articles linked from EC-Council, which seem to exist to promote a commercial interest without imparting any real encyclopedic value. Note the advertisement image in the article. - Mr X 20:02, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete see ../... Certified Secure Programmer W Nowicki (talk) 17:17, 20 November 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. SarahStierch (talk) 00:57, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

EC-Council Certified Encryption Specialist[edit]

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

Article about a technical certification replete with WP:REFSPAM and several dubious references. This is one of several non-notable certification articles linked from EC-Council, which seem to exist to promote a commercial interest without imparting any real encyclopedic value. - Mr X 19:53, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete see ../... Certified Secure Programmer W Nowicki (talk) 17:14, 20 November 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. SarahStierch (talk) 00:59, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kitáb-Hayyat[edit]

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

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

Subject of the article is not notable. Searching for the subject on google, google books, google scholar only produced at most 2 sources (generously) who have only passing reference to the subject of the article. The single citation on the page doesn't ever refer to the book. At best it should be a noted in the Subh-i-Azal page as a list of works. Jeff3000 (talk) 19:19, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

this is The Text of Hayyat Book (in Persian) --Islam90 (talk) 19:47, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (both). Unable to find anything with basic searches appears to be obscure. It has many search variants and offline/darknet possibilities so who knows what might turn up, but doesn't look promising. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 07:40, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm adding the page Kitab-i-Aqsa to this AFD request. It's started from the same editor, and is an article in the same vein. It similarly lacks any notability; I've checked online source and can't find any mentions of it, other than the actual text of the article. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 14:55, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for reasons articulated above Kabirat (talk) 08:20, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons articulated above --Smkolins (talk) 15:20, 23 November 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 Evolutionary economics#Journals. SarahStierch (talk) 01:01, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Evolutionary and Institutional Economics Review[edit]

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

Highly promotional article accepted from AfC for non0notable journal . The journal, according to itself, is not in JCR or SSCI because of its low citation rate. (See section 2 on this page on its cite . According to Google Scholar, its 3 most cited articles have received 88, 79, and 68 citations.

The article contains, contrary to practice,a list of articles published, repetitive statements of its academic stance, and uses its Wikipedia article as a reference on its own web site. DGG ( talk ) 18:59, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Evolutionary economics#Journals. The journal is indexed at ZBW, but I don't know if this is considered selective. While the journal exists and has an ISSN number, I could find no other evidence of selective indexing. If we had an article on the Japan Association for Evolutionary Economics, that would be a natural merge target, but no such luck. The journal's existence is verifiable, however and it is already mentioned in the journals section of our Evolutionary economics article, so a redirect to that section may be the best option. --Mark viking (talk) 21:09, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Evolutionary economics#Journals per Gene93k. I am the editor who accepted this article, but looking at it now it doesn't seem to meet WP:NJOURNAL. --Cerebellum (talk) 01:54, 19 November 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. SarahStierch (talk) 01:01, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

James Bolton (footballer)[edit]

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

PROD contested as the article creator added a reference. However, that does not help this articles cause. Bolton has played for Macclesfield but in the Conference Premier, the 5th tier of English football, which, according to WP:FPL, is not a fully-professional league. Only players who have played or managed in a fully-pro league or pass WP:GNG are notable. This article does not pass these two criterias. ArsenalFan700 (talk) 18:50, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:55, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:55, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as original PRODder, article clearly fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:09, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - He has played first team matches this season and as such is a full member of the squad for his current club.TimMassey (talk) 20:31, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Those first-team caps came for a side that does not play in a fully-professional league though. Also, there are not enough reliable sources out there to prove he passes GNG. As such he fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG and is not notable. You can userfy the page if you want so that, until he is notable, you could work on the article and make sure that it is updated to the "T" for when he is finally notable. Cheers. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 20:38, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Has never played in a WP:FPL. Fenix down (talk) 11:05, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – has not played at a sufficiently high level or received sufficient coverage. C 679 11:51, 20 November 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 speedily deleted (G12, internal copyvio) by Nyttend. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 00:52, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Formula One Season[edit]

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

This seems to be a near copy-paste recreation of 2015 Formula One season. Note that many of the references are for various years ranging from 2013 to 2015. I originally nominated this for CSD:G4, but another editor objected. - Mr X 18:40, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the AfD from a few years ago: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014 Formula One season - Mr X 18:53, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree that in its current form this article should be deleted due to the copy/paste nature of it. I think it is fair to go through the full deletion process to give the creator or someone else a chance to improve it, though. ParacusForward (talk) 18:49, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON and recommend this article be salted till least the summer of 2014. This is the 3rd time it has been created in the last month. Trust me it will be created again before Christmas....William 16:46, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just a copy/paste from the 2015 article with no sources for 2016. Kante4 (talk) 21:59, 18 November 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 deleted by Yunshui per WP:CSD#A11. Cnilep (talk) 00:37, 19 November 2013 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Ishiefu[edit]

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

Non-notable neologism. - Mr X 17:52, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I may be wrong but wouldn't this classify as speedy delete, maybe as an A7? A preliminary search didn't even provide anything so it's probably a hoax or solely used among those "AFC Leopard fans". SwisterTwister talk 18:33, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't believe it falls into A7 because (from WP:NOTCSD): "If even remotely plausible, a suspected hoax article should be subjected to further scrutiny in a wider forum. Truth is often stranger than fiction." Like you said it is probably a hoax, but it is not obviously a hoax.
Delete - Does not contain references and like SwisterTwister I couldn't find one to support it. ParacusForward (talk) 19:06, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - looks to qualify for WP:CSD#A11. Giant Snowman 12:57, 18 November 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 both. Secret ^account 15:16, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cookie (song)[edit]

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

I am also nominating the following related page:

Both songs fail WP:NSONGS due to lacking any lasting non-trivial significant coverage in reliable sources and lack of charting. I see no chance of either of these articles expanding to anything at this point. Redirect to the album page compromise was denied by article creator, so best to delete the articles and if anyone sees the need for redirects they can be recreated. STATic message me! 16:46, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both or redirect if desired as well. From what I understand, the song charted on Billboard once but there's not much attention for this song and Google News didn't provide much either. Another search provided some magazine articles but it's probably minor at most. SwisterTwister talk 18:41, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@SwisterTwister: Should that be considered a delete vote for both articles? At least "Genius" was a single, "Cookie" was just a song released for free prior to the album. STATic message me! 19:32, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clarified now, it seems both songs aren't essentially notable on their own and are probably better known through the album itself. As for "Cookie", it caused some stir because of the sexuality (it's not the first time) so it's nothing major. SwisterTwister talk 01:22, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both per nom. Steel1943 (talk) 02:56, 24 November 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 15:18, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lazar Stojadinovic[edit]

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

MMA fighter with no top tier fights and only routine sports coverage, so he fails to meet either WP:GNG or WP:NMMA. Papaursa (talk) 16:26, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 16:26, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails NMMA and GNG. No top tier fights or significant coverage.204.126.132.231 (talk) 20:59, 19 November 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, SarahStierch (talk) 02:01, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet the notability stated on WP:NMMA. Steel1943 (talk) 03:02, 24 November 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 Boeing 777. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:06, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Boeing 777X[edit]

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

Content already covered by main article (Boeing 777) FonEengIneeR7 (talk) 16:02, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. See WP:SOFTDELETE regarding this choice; it would otherwise be Keep. The 777X article may contain similar information to the 777X Program subsection, but it is presented in an entirely different format. The fact that there is a primary sources tag is also a mystery, as I count at least four in the references. It could (and should) be expanded with more information about the Dubai Air Show orders, which are recent developments. But the proper tag for this article is Merge, not Delete (because other aircraft variants are listed within their main airframe articles). New info or relevant tables like the one in 777X should be merged into the appropriate 777 section, not just trashed altogether; they add readability to what is now a bunch of dry measurements. — VoxLuna ☾ ^orbit_land 02:50, 18 November 2013

I dont see why aircrafts don't have their own page. I always look up a paticular aircraft but find myself having to look through long articles for the one plane. It's just a way of adding simplicity. --Ncchild (talk) 13:34, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They do. Aircraft have their own page. And variants of that specific type are covered within the specific aircraft's page. Wikipedia may not be paper, but we don't have 10 stubs for each aircraft instead of a single comprehensive page. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:31, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. per VoxLuna. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 17:44, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. per VoxLuna. I see your point. FonEengIneeR7 (talk) 18:41, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So what should we do. I mean it's a growing article and I don't think people have a problem with it. The thing is Wikipedia has so many boundaries. I usually work in roads with NC State routes and have written about some secondary roads before which both got deleted. I'm not trying to argue I just think that yes there should be the big cumulative page but also their should be individual ones for the planes for people who want just that plane type. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ncchild (talk • contribs) 22:36, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"That plane type" is Boeing 777. Variants only get subpages when they have a lot to spin out - especially when they are unflown future developments. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:31, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not opposed to creating separate articles for separate versions of aircraft. In fact I'd probably support it. From someone who reads a lot of articles on aircraft but has no involvement in writing them, the decision to have only one article for each main aircraft type or separate articles for each version (Boeing 777, A380, etc.) is something that needs to be handled in part by those involved with the Aviation Wikiproject. Disassembling (or perhaps more correctly, expanding?) current articles (these long articles with all aircraft versions in one) will be an extraordinary task, and the decision to do this goes far above the fate of this single article. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 03:37, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as outlined by VoxLuna. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:31, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the Boeing 777 article, 777X section, i.e. Boeing 777#777X program. The 777X is better covered there and with more references. Such a split can be done in the future if needed after reaching a consensus at Talk:Boeing 777. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:42, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I dont see why. This has more information then the one on the 777 page--Ncchild (talk) 13:06, 21 November 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Clearly not when I posted that 2 days ago if you check the history. The 777X article has been expanded in the last day or so and is a valid article now. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:16, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as per VoxLuna. smileguy91^talk 22:44, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The 777X is a major update to the 777, probably to a greater extent than those of the Boeing 737 MAX and Airbus A320neo family over their predecessors. - BilCat (talk) 10:09, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- However it's simply WP:TOOSOON. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:44, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I disagree that it's too soon. The 777X article can stand alonecas it is now quite well. I spent a couple of hours yesterday expanding the article to see what was possible, and it's already much larger than a stub, and well referenced. This article has already had 11,000 page views, most since Monday, which is quite good for a new article. The 777X been a success at the Dubai Air show, and garnered a lot of publicity. Given all that taken together, I think it's best to keep all the info on the 777X on it's own page now. If we do merge, I think the 777X info on the main 777 page will grow so fast that will have to split it off again in a few months or less, and that seems like wasted effort to me. - BilCat (talk) 10:58, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Page views are up to 15,000 now (Saturday morning U S time). Also, 777X article is about 80% the size of the 737MAX and A320neo articles. - BilCat (talk) 11:51, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per VoxLuna. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 02:41, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per VoxLuna (talk · contribs). JJ98 (Talk) 05:09, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Boeing 737 Classic has its own article, the same goes for the 737NG and 737MAX. A320NEO followed the same path. At this moment it might not have too much information but, this will increment as time goes by. Alainmoscoso (talk) 22:56, 17 November 2013 (UTC)-Found this on the talk page--Ncchild (talk) 13:04, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per other articles such as Boeing 747-400 and Boeing 747-8 and many other variants have their own articles. Baseball Watcher 22:25, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per VoxLuna. Steel1943 (talk) 03:03, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a significant development of the aircraft which deserves an article of its own, like the Boeing 747-400 or Boeing 747-8. Challisrussia (talk) 21:45, 24 November 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. A7 as well Secret ^account 15:19, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chitral Today[edit]

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

Fails WP:WEBCRIT. All the sources used in the article of poor quality that can't be relied upon for establishing notability. SMS ^Talk 15:31, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. SMS ^Talk 16:13, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. SMS ^Talk 16:15, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Remark: One of the sources cited is a wikipedia article which can't be cited as a source at all. I find only one non primary source [1] in the article. This source is kind of more about the journalist who owns Chitral Today and the paper gets a bare mention. I guess this paper is not notable yet. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:58, 20 November 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, SarahStierch (talk) 02:09, 24 November 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.

I am Shocked The Article about the one and only news website of Chitral and Kalash Valley i.e. Chitral Today has been deleted without consensus -- Mirajbibi (talk) 06:12, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep - Withdrawn by nominator. - Mr X 15:41, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Little Traitor[edit]

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

Article about a minor independent film which relies on self-published sources. Fails WP:NFILM. - Mr X 14:46, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn - I made a mistake. - Mr X 15:38, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Sing 15:20, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Sing 15:21, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Easily meets WP:NFILM. Google News to start with. Sam Sailor ^Sing 15:23, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete - author request. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:17, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Supernova (programming language)[edit]

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

Apparently minor programming language sourced only to blogs and forums. (Possible COI; article creator User:Msfclipper has only edited articles related to the work of Mahmoud Samir Fayed - namely this and PWCT (programming language).) McGeddon (talk) 12:42, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—notable : Supernova programming language, is a free open source software and [| one of the few natural programming languages], Google return about 7940 results] , this research paper provide a reference to Supernova Msfclipper (talk) 13:42, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That research paper focuses mainly on a different language and gives Supernova only a single, dismissive paragraph of comparison, although it does call it "the first Arabic natural programming language". Is this what Supernova is best known for? --McGeddon (talk) 14:18, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Supernova is known for more than one reason, (1) the language is a natural programming language and there are few of these languages that are developed for research. (2) the language allow writing text based source code in English keywords, Arabic keywords and English /Arabic keywords in the same program. (3) the language token is a letter and it's not case/line/space sensitive, (4) the language developed using a visual programming language called PWCT and it's the first text based programming language developed using a visual programming language. (5) the language is free open source Msfclipper (talk) 14:26, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:57, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:46, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. Sources offered are all WP:Primary (meaning, sources written by the author) or otherwise unsuitable. Googling turns up nothing useful. It's possible this is simply a case of WP:Too soon and that new, more helpful sources could appear tomorrow. But, frankly, I doubt it. It's very difficult to imagine this going anywhere. I don't know who would use it to do what. WP:COI is not a reason to delete but is a reason to question Msfclipper's impartiality in claiming this language is known for anything or even that it's known at all. If, as I expect, the consensus is to delete, Msfclipper should request the article be userfied if he'd like to continue working on it as he looks for more suitable sources. Msnicki (talk) 17:15, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete. This is just too soon for a spinoff article and given that the main article says the show is going through restructuring, listing episode titles would be premature at this point in time as this could change between now and when/if it's released. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:38, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Girl Meets World episodes[edit]

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

Unsourced list of future television program episodes. Lacks notability and fails WP:NOTDIR. - Mr X 12:41, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete then create a Redirect with possibilities to Girl Meets World. Far too soon for a list of episodes article. Should at least be airing before an episode article is even considered. This article consists of unreferenced speculation about the future of the show all of which should be deleted from any list of episodes article, leaving nothing in this one. Geraldo Perez (talk) 12:49, 17 November 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 15:21, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PWCT (programming language)[edit]

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

Apparently minor programming language sourced only to blog reviews and articles written by the developer. (Possible COI; article creator User:Msfclipper has only edited articles related to the work of Mahmoud Samir Fayed - namely this and Supernova (programming language).)

Prod template was removed with the rationale that the TIOBE index ranked it as the 101st most mentioned programming language online when it added it to their list earlier this month at the developer's request, but the significance of this is unclear. McGeddon (talk) 12:39, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—Notable : PWCT is an acronym for "Programming Without Coding Technology", Google return about 212,000 results , PWCT is a Visual programming language tracked by the [| TIOBE index], | PWCT is a free open source software hosted on Sourceforge, PWCT rank in the Science & Engineering section is #3 , | over 60,000 weekly downloads , | Sourceforge : PWCT in the Top Performing Projects. Msfclipper (talk) 13:11, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:55, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:56, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Same lack of suitable sources to establish notability noted in the related WP:Articles for deletion/Supernova (programming language), so I won't repeat it here. If, as I expect, consensus is to delete and Msfclipper would like to continue working on it, he should request that this article also be userfied. Msnicki (talk) 17:43, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

* ~~Keep~~ Comment : Smart POS System developed using PWCT , Critical Nodes application developed using PWCT , Supernova programming language developed using PWCT , Somali-Quran Application developed using PWCT , Jamal TV Player developed using PWCT , PWCT is referenced from Visual programming language article , PWCT is one of the few visual programming languages tracked by TIOBE index , total files download over 6,000,000 downloads Msfclipper (talk) 17:54, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PWCT Arabic Group on facebook (over 11,000 members) , PWCT English group on facebook (over 2,000 members) , PWCT Page on facebook (over 2,000 likes) , Free remote learning in arabic language, Applications by students , free 113 book/tutorial in Arabic language Msfclipper (talk) 18:08, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PWCT Review on sourceforge by 570 users

Chapter 21 in Book : Visual programming languages ISBN-13: 9781156627273 Msfclipper (talk) 18:15, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

King Saud University PWCT software ISBN: 9789960559810 Msfclipper (talk) 18:39, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You only get to !vote once in an AfD, Msfclipper. If you add anything else, it should be a comment. The fact that it's on sourceforge or that it's been downloaded a lot or even that it has a lot of likes on Facebook is unhelpful in establishing notability as defined here Wikipedia. To establish notability here requires reliable, independent secondary sources. We can accept nothing else. Those sources do not appear to exist for this product. Msnicki (talk) 22:57, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

comment Source 1 , Source 2 Source 3 , Source 4 , Source 5 , Source 6 , Source 7 , Source 8 , Source 9 , Source 10 , Source 11 , Source 12 , Source 13 , Source 14 , Source 15 , Source 16 , Source 17 , Source 18 , Source 19 , Source 20 , Source 21 , Source 22 , Source 23 , Source 24 , Source 25 , Source 26 , Source 27 , Source 28 , Source 29 , Source 30 , Source 31 , Source 32 , Source 33 , Source 34 , Source 35 , Source 36 , Source 37 , Source 38 , Source 39 , Source 40 , Source 41 , Source 42 , Source 43 , Source 44 , Source 45 , Source 46 , Source 47 , Source 48 , Source 49 , Source 50 , Source 51 , Source 52 , Source 53 , Source 54 , Source 55 , Source 56 , Source 57 , Source 58 , Source 59 , Source 60 , Source 61 , Source 62 , Source 63 , Source 64 , Source 65 , Source 66 , Source 67 , Source 68 , Source 69 , Source 70 , Source 71 , Source 72, Source 73 , Source 74 , Source 75 , Source 76 , Source 77

Sourceforge blog , TIOBE Index , Visual programming languages ISBN-13: 978115662727 and many others are reliable, independent secondary sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Msfclipper (talk • contribs) 23:31, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, blogs and discussion board posts are what we call questionable sources. Before you post more of this unhelpful stuff, please read the guidelines. Msnicki (talk) 00:33, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

comment The article contains only facts about free-open source software, anyone can download the software or see online movies to be sure that the content is right, no personal view, just what is the software and what are the free open source applications developed using this software. From Download statistics, Google search, the software is notable.

There is no real reason to delete the article, the article is around notable software and includes only facts. Wikipedians with knowledge about the subject (Visual programming languages, Software development tools and PWCT) can improve the article

In February 2012, King Saud University, provided a free Distance education course around PWCT 1.8 (Smart) ^[1] by the Research Chair of Pervasive and Mobile Computing ^[2] in the College of computer and Information Sciences. The course content was based on Arabic Movies (12 hours). ^[3] The course contains three levels, the First level was just an introduction to some of the basic programming concepts like Variables, Control flow and Object-oriented programming. The Second level was around developing simple Client-server database applications and the third level was around developing database applications using PWCT Templates. ^[4] ^[5]

The free Distance education course was provided to 126 students ^[6]. As of 2013, 28 students completed the course ^[7]

Commercial database application developed using PWCT Source 1 , Source 2 Msfclipper (talk) 17:46, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another commercial database application developed using PWCT Source

Free open source Course Management System (Arabic) developed using PWCT [http://kutub.info/library/book/11494 Source

"There are several Visual Programming Languages (VPL) that help you to create software programs across many platforms without having to write a single line of code. With Visual Programming Language, a graphical interface takes over the necessity to compile code. You can now arrange, add, substitute program elements graphically. You can search the web for these types of software since there are many but there is one written in open source called PWCT which stands for “Programming Without Coding Technology”. You can get it from sourceforge.net website or do a search on PWCT then you will find it. PWCT is software made for anyone without programming skills to learn how to write general purpose programs. You can download from this website and create your own software program just by follow the instructions there.

However I hope that after playing with PWCT, you will find that programming is not that difficult then you will learn Java, C++, Python, and Ruby and write more code then you will like programming. " Prof. Vu (Carnegie Mellon University) profile

Sourceforge message (November 2013) by Daniel Hinojosa (SourceForge Community Manager), PWCT in the Top Performing Projects , Source Msfclipper (talk) 19:04, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Auditory & Visual Debugging Aids by Anders Frandsen, Michael Lisby and Rune Jensen. In page 13 Reference (7) they says Programming Without Coding Technology [7] provides a view of the state of the execution of a program at any time. Changing time is done using a timeline slider, a feature that might be feasible to implement, if a debugging tool should allow the programmer to select a specific point in time to view. Msfclipper (talk) 00:47, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The TIOBE index ranked PWCT as 101 out of 228 programming languages worldwide. This ranks PWCT as #8 among visual programming languages after Ladder logic, Scratch, Alice, Automator, LabVIEW, Pure Data and Max/MSP.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Msfclipper (talk • contribs) 12:40, 18 November 2013
Delete (nonnotable advertisement) TEDickey (talk) 19:35, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Clean (No Advertisement) and Notable (It is published software that has been recognized as having historical or technical significance by reliable sources). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.57.215.5 (talk) 20:26, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: User:212.57.215.5 appears to be User:Msfclipper rather than an uninvolved IP editor supporting the article's inclusion. (Msfclipper has claimed this IP's edits as his own in the past.) --McGeddon (talk) 11:31, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment PWCT is a visual programming language, please read this article : https://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=Visual_programming_language then Look at PWCT as a language in the domain of visual programming languages, PWCT is notable free open source software in this domain.Msfclipper (talk) 22:36, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There is also an AFD at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/PWCT where this page was supposed to have been moved too but was apparently actually a copy-and-paste move. Extremely confusing! :-( 220 of ^Borg 09:41, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was a copy-paste of a two-week-old version of this article, created by User:Msfclipper with the misleading edit summary "Starting the PWCT page on Wikipedia". Msfclipper changed his mind and requested speedy deletion of it, but User:212.57.215.5 (who may or may not be the same user) then removed the speedy template and another user put it up for AfD. --McGeddon (talk) 09:47, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My brain is starting to hurt trying to follow this. :-( I think I understand now. 220 of ^Borg 09:54, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oof! My brain is hurting, too. User:220 of Borg, you and User:Reddogsix did not help things. You should have simply let PWCT get speedy deleted. I'm guessing Reddogsix did not realize that User:Msfclipper and User:Mahmoud Fayed are the same person. Msnicki (talk) 10:01, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

:-O Excuse me, but I have not even edited the PWCT page, I commented on its talkpage, and Afd page that is all. I had no knowledge of the multiple related pages at the start. I can't see how anything I did affected that AfD in any way. 220 of ^Borg 10:53, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:220 of Borg, you don't count this edit with the comment, "This page was NOT moved, despite what edit history says, nor is there an active AFD. Appears to have been copy-pasted to PWCT (programming language) then moved(correctly) to PWCT"? You have no idea why this was a problem or why I undid it? Msnicki (talk) 11:05, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What's happened to AGF? I Made that edit in good faith. I may have been mistaken, it seems I misinterpre[te]d the way move logs work as it seemed to me that the page had not been moved. And, when I clicked on the Afd link it did not link to this AfD and though I looked I could not find it. I did not know it was several days old. Of course you were correct to revert me. I would not have re-directed the page knowing what I know now about this AfD. I think we have all wasted far too much time on this issue. 220 of ^Borg 11:34, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do AGF. But I don't know how you deleted the AfD header without noticing the active AfD. You say you clicked the link and it didn't come here. How is that possible? Where did it take you instead? After I reverted your edit the link worked and it works on the version just before your edit. I do assume good faith, but that doesn't rule out a little carelessness. We all do that from time-to-time. When I do that, I often hear about it. It's not personal. Msnicki (talk) 17:23, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was notcareless in any way. When I clicked the link it took me to the 'main' AFD page. I have no idea why, but that is what happened. The only thing I did was redirect the 'PWCT' related page. Based on the fact that it didn't take me to an active AfD, and that the page had been 'moved' to another page, that the IP editor had been adding and removing IIRC csd/afd templates, and that 2 pages on the same topic existed, then I think you should be able to see that re-directing to the 'newer' page was the obvious thing to do with the information available to me. I would suggest that you should have taken your queries about what Reddog and I did to our talkpages, rather than a forum like AfD. Ps I checked the edit history, again (see01:47, 21 November 2013), and despite what the edit summary says the page was NOT moved. A move would have left a re-direct and there was no re-direct.220 of ^Borg 01:11, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'm not trying to beat you up. Perhaps WP was temporarily just as confused as any of us. May suggest that it would be more helpful if you and Reddogsix would care to !vote. I expect you both will !vote delete, but you need to say it. Msnicki (talk) 03:22, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Why are you telling me I did not help things, I did nothing here or on the article mentioned in this AfD, all I did was PROD another article after it was created and then AfD it after the PROD was removed. I had no idea this article existed until after I finished creating the AfD for teh other article. I did not nothing here to complicate matters. I suggest you look closely at the article history before throwing stones. reddogsix (talk) 14:23, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'm probably jumping on you a little unfairly. I apologize. I'm frustrated that I wasted about another hour on something that was already wasting more time than I had originally expected, what with having to poke through all those pointless additional "sources" User:Msfclipper kept adding. (Yes, I did check them. Useless blog posts and similar junk, every one of them.) Msnicki (talk) 17:23, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, 20 lashes with a wet noodle. 8-) BTW - Thanks for your work on this. reddogsix (talk) 18:13, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it stands but allow creation of a replacement article that would actually describe what PWCT is, what it does, and why it is notable, using only third-party sources. At present there is a clear conflict of interest and an intention to advertise. Deb (talk) 11:25, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. —Darkwind (talk) 08:49, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Minecraft's Next Top Model[edit]

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

Seems promotional, unreferenced, and Google only turns up 9 results. In my opinion, the subject of this article does not meet WP:WEB. Jinkinson talk to me 05:25, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 05:26, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as a blatant hoax, one of several that the user has added to Wikipedia, although not all of them were speedied as hoax articles. Almost all of his edits seem to revolve around things that he's made up himself (WP:ONEDAY) and he's admitted to as much on the talk page for Talk:Minecraft Senate Elections, 2013. I've blocked the user indefinitely for consistently creating and re-creating these pages. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:47, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete the first no consensus on the second. Secret ^account 15:25, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Index of hidden wikis and Tor hidden service directories[edit]

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

Seems to fail WP:GNG, if not falling foul of WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTGUIDE and I'm sure we're not here to guide people through the Tor network. Also including List of Tor hidden services as whilst they exist, we cant WP:RS them tutterMouse (talk) 14:57, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Once all the HOWTO text is removed, the only blue link in the list is The Hidden Wiki. A list with one item is of no value. Pburka (talk) 15:42, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note my !vote applies only to the primary article. ~~I have no opinion about List of Tor hidden services.~~ Pburka (talk) 23:13, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Keep List of Tor hidden services. It's reasonably referenced. Pburka (talk) 05:28, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:NOTMANUAL are the main problems here, and are unlikely to be fixed due to the lack of secondary sourcing.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:31, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – no claim to notability, see WP:N; is a guide which goes against policy, see WP:NOTGUIDE Epicgenius^{(give him tirade • check out damage)} 19:35, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Relist~~. Why I was not informed about it, I'm the creator of List of Tor hidden services. It has been repeatedly vandalized by autoconfirmed users, who added unsourced spam to both articles. I requested a page protection, however they were autoconfirmed. I've removed the spam, again (see its scary history!) to its best shape - also Talk:Tor_(anonymity_network)#Proposed_merge_with_List_of_Tor_hidden_services. Relist it please. --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 19:54, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Why on earth would we need to relist this? It was only nominated this morning, and there has been good participation. We relist debates when the initial time period has elapsed and there has been insufficient discussion or consensus is unclear. Pburka (talk) 22:43, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So just keep the second. --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 01:13, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- Make a separate entry. After mass revert in List of Tor hidden services that's a completely different article than before this deletion request. There is no reason to taking them to one sack. List is just a list and and has nothing to do with Index of hidden wikis and Tor hidden service directories. --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 11:21, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep both preferably (or else delete both).
- I posted a very long response to defend my contributions to this page (Index of hidden wikis and Tor hidden service directories), on my talk page.
  - and also to defend my contributions to List of Tor hidden services, which were summarily reverted by Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) (who then, several times, accused me of "vandalism" and then "spamming", with no explanation on the talk page at all, my talk page, or on any talk page, when in fact all I was doing was adding sources to content that was unsourced. I feel the need to defend myself to some extent, because these are serious accusations.)
- But mainly I want to defend the idea that it can, sometimes be acceptable to use Tor sources as sources about themselves, and to write articles about Tor hidden services that can be held to be notable by consensus of the Tor community, even when only primary (and no secondary) reliable sources can confirm this.
- :: Sgutkind (talk) 09:40, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Response: I see that you don't understand which Wikipedia is and which not. Please reread WP:NOTDIRECTORY, WP:NOTGUIDE and WP:NOTMANUAL. I've copied your work to my computer, maybe a part of your contribs can be reused. Don't blame me for it, I like Tor, but your edits are completely unencyclopedic and and can not be part of Wikipedia in this shape. Not Wikipedia, but maybe WP:Wikibooks, Tor needs a guide and Wikibooks is place for books, guides. But before you edit, please read its guidelines. You have good intentions and all Wikimedia projects need people like you, but you have only to know how to do it. In the end, please. Don't judge an article which he drove to deletion candidacy. --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 11:14, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Response: I respect your disagreement, I appreciate you now have good faith understand my intentions are not to post spam but to add primary sources to Wikipedia that can say something reliable about Tor. Like I said, I'm familiar with Tor but less so with Wikipedia, perhaps I am not familiar enough with what qualifies as an article. But it needs to belong somewhere because otherwise the other article you started (List of Tor hidden services) would have no sources to draw from (i.e. & no way to prove the sites exist, their place in Tor, reliability for Tor users, notability, etc.) whether primary or secondary
  - I still think that arguably the article doesn't have to be a guide/directory/manual and can be made encyclopedic.
  - I still think that primary sources from Tor can sometimes satisfy WP:N and WP:RS as well as WP:NOT
  - I still think that Wikipedia would be missing something by not including this article indexing the most reliable (not 100% reliable primary sources on Tor, it has to be said somewhere
  - It's not a bad thing to move it to Wikibooks as a guide/manual. But it still has to be somewhere or else Wikipedia and other places will have basically no sources to draw from to talk about Tor.
    - If it's on a Wikimedia project (not just my own website) it can probably be made reputable enough to be a secondary source for Wikipedia, because people can verify that the primary sources I list are accepted by the community, and not just people like me.
    - If that works and is acceptable for other people, then the other articles about hidden services (The Hidden Wiki, Silk Road, etc.) will have primary sources to draw from too, we can all contribute URLs of the sites in List of Tor hidden services to the index.
    - That way those articles will have both primary sources, from the URLs, and a secondary source (from the index/guide, whether it's in Wikipedia or Wikibooks). Whereas right now List of Tor hidden services and its sub-articles don't have any sources that they can list.
      - Of course they do have primary sources indeed, on Tor, ...but,
      - I guess the problem is that, these can't appear on a list of sources because of these policies, because currently they don't have any secondary sources establishing that they are the real primary sources, with the criteria like reliability/notability/etc., so we don't know anything for sure except that they exist.
    - I appreciate that any of you might disagree with me, as long as there's a constructive way to solve this problem, by placing the information somewhere that's reliable and community property, so that information won't be wiped out from the public Internet. --Sgutkind (talk) 21:42, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- Delete - Fails notability, disparate list of links based on a protocol shouldn't have its own article. Zambelo (talk) 22:35, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - May I know why it shouldn't? --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 21:10, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The former is written like a how-to guide; you should not use "you" when writing a Wikipedia article. The former is a paltry "list" that barely has any content. Neither shows any evidence of reputable sourcing or notability. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:41, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both (one is unsalvageable, the other is a list that can easily fit into the main article on tor), its just going to continue to attract SPA editors who want to turn our articles and templates on tor and other hidden services into guides or indexes for using these services. they can do this on their own damn website. You kids get OFF my lawn! this whole topic needs to be carefully monitored so that the SPAs dont ruin their encyclopedic nature. all we need is the main article. i really dont think we need the template either, and its a target for inappropriate editing as well. and if i need to say it, i will: this is NOT a diatribe against the subject. i really dont even care. i just want the articles to be NPOV and based on reliable sources. maybe they could write a wikibook on it.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:20, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I indeed have "my own damn website", LOL, (and have made use of it in making contributions to these articles); it is one (among many) of the primary sources on the Tor network you can consider (and the only one which I personally have verified or know is reliable or verifiable), but alas:
  Seriously: If the Wikipedia editor community at large, thinks that having a list of (semi-)reliable sources about Tor, is against Wikipedia policy (or against the policy of being encyclopedic in general), then it might as well be deleted. We can indeed write a Wikibook about it, I hope nobody will find it objectionable if we link to the Wikibook from the Wikipedia articles that need it as a source.
  The rest of my response is long and so I put it on my talk page, I accept why people might want to delete these articles, so look on my talk page only if you care to.
  Thanks for contributing to a useful debate with me; and I am not being sarcastic. Sgutkind (talk) 04:23, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please notes that Wikibooks doesn't permit original research either. I'm a bit worried about the suggestion that you could publish your research elsewhere and then use that to bootstrap a Wikipedia article. Unless the place you publish has some sort of editorial oversight, it can't be used in Wikipedia. Pburka (talk) 04:44, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Not quite; the policy proposal reads: “In practice, however, Wikibooks allows material based on repeatable information from personal experiences […]”, which (I believe) covers the material in question.
    
    Note, however, that Wikibooks, being essentially self-published, is not considered a reliable source for the purposes of Wikipedia.
    
    It’s not entirely inappropriate to publish “[one’s] original research elsewhere and use that to bootstrap a Wikipedia article,” either, – as long as that place is, say, a known peer-reviewed journal with a considerable impact factor.
    
    — Ivan Shmakov (d ▞ c) 09:49, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, for failing both Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Notability. The content may be moved to Wikibooks, indeed, yet the resulting wikibook should not be deemed a reliable source for Wikipedia articles. (It can be referenced in the “External links” section of the articles on the subject, as per Wikipedia:Wikimedia sister projects, though. Check {{Wikibooks}}, for instance.) — Ivan Shmakov (d ▞ c) 09:49, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course, I wasn't going to list the Wikibook in "references", only in "External links". It should be relevant enough for that.
  As I said, no presumption is intended regarding its reliability; if God His Omniscient Self wrote a book indexing Tor hidden services, I would find reason to doubt that it's 100% reliable, owing to the lack of verifiability unless God were wiling to engage in every illegal activity imaginable in order to "test them out". (God cannot commit sins, I'm not an expert in Christian theology, not to mention an atheist at any rate, so don't take my word for it, but you get the point.) I tried to make it clear in everything I said (and anything I might publish in the future) that nobody can claim verifiability of such sites without making serious confessions that would put oneself at legal risk.
  I would find it worthwhile if someone, not necessarily me, would make an effort to publish such a thing in a respected publication, but I'd find it likely that none of them would touch the subject with a 10-foot pole, for the same reasons as have been cited here.
  Thanks for sharing your views on the point; I want to make it clear that such a Wikibook or other project would not be cited in the References sections, for the reasons other editors have already made clear; maybe it could be put in a list of Self-compiled primary source references however, with the intention and explicit warning that it not be used to bootstrap citations for claims made in other parts of Wikipedia articles, only as a place to look for people who want to look further into the subject and are looking for a (semi-)reliable, community-edited source of information.
  The goal of a primary reference on Tor hidden services that isn't "self-published" or "self-compiled" is a dream that may never be attained.
  At any rate, this editorial debate itself has proven at least almost as interesting as the content of the original articles themselves, and is a topic that invites much further discussion, maybe not here, but I'd personally suggest mirroring this debate on any forum, wiki, or Wikibook that proposes being a primary source on hidden services.Sgutkind (talk) 12:44, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'KEEP' I vote to keep the article. It is useful to the many who use Tor and you find Tor users world over. I also feel that until a decision has been made that the Editors instruct Moderators to lock down the article to prevent possible vandalism and spam. I also request that Wikipedia re-examine the policy of Notability. Notability prevents articles about local topics of interest from being published. I suggest the editors also request the assistance of World Book Encyclopedia, and Encyclopedia Britannica in re-examining the policy of Notability Magnum Serpentine (talk) 02:21, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Will moving the contents to Wikibooks make it any less accessible to the Tor users?

As for the “local events,” Wikipedia aims to be a worldwide encyclopedia. The events of no importance to a worldwide audience are clearly out of scope. (That being said, a discussion on such a matter should surely be directed elsewhere. Also to note is that recent events, that are likely to be interesting to a large number of people, are perfectly appropriate for Wikinews. Wikipedia may be the most important of the Wikimedia projects, but it’s far from being the only one.)

— Ivan Shmakov (d ▞ c) 07:25, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia isn't a directory. If they really want to find such a list, they can go to Google and do that. Epicgenius^{(give him tirade • check out damage)} 14:43, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't judge both articles on this page! List of Tor hidden services is now just a list of wikilinked articles. --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 11:00, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? Epicgenius^{(give him tirade • check out damage)} 14:45, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on the basis of both being nominated at the same time. The Index... is an easy delete as it consists of a single blue link and doesn't establish notability. List of Tor hidden services is a subject discussed as a whole set in reliable sources and is comprised of a number of individually and collectively notable sites. The current version needs work and the services themselves could have a better presence on Wikipedia but to me it's clearly notable. Nominate them separately. --Rhododendrites (talk) 15:31, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Changes made - I've cleaned up and added several more links to List of Tor hidden services, including a link to a recent research paper which looks at them as a group. I have many others from popular and academic publications but I'm not sure how best to incorporate them if purely to establish notability. Just throw them at the end of the lede? This one is really an open and shut keep (not so much for the Index of indexes though). --Rhododendrites (talk) 16:42, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - For anybody arguing for deletion on the basis of notability....even the most cursory search for sources before commenting would show many sources in just the first few pages of Google hits. Here are just a few of the sources talking specifically about hidden services as a group (and I haven't even looked at google news or scholar):
- IEEE symposium, digital trends, infosec island, applied cryptography and network security, thomson reuters white paper, practical anonymity, computers in human behavior, baltimore sun, rogue media, IEEE proceedings --Rhododendrites (talk) 17:04, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - It needs a serious rewrite, if that is the case. Epicgenius^{(give him tirade • check out damage)} 16:42, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Can you elaborate on how you would like to see List of Tor hidden services rewritten? Pburka (talk) 17:17, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - "It needs a serious rewrite" is not a reason for deletion. It would appear as though it's now about WP:DONTLIKEIT. --Rhododendrites (talk) 03:29, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. taking account of the changes made in the articles since the beginning of the AfDs , DGG ( talk ) 04:59, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE Per the numerous WP:NOT reasons given above. Q ^{T C} 21:48, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- @OverlordQ: Could you be more specific? The relist comment asks for new comments taking account of the changes made since the beginning of the AfD. By saying all of the above you're including comments about the pre-changes articles, and not differentiating between the two nominated. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 04:44, 21 November 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. User withdrawn. (Non-admin closure.) Alex^{discussion ★} 10:03, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon King[edit]

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

Pretty clearly does not meet WP:NGRIDIRON John from Idegon (talk) 04:57, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Per NFL.com, he played in 8 regular season NFL games for the Colts, and thus clearly does pass WP:NGRIDIRON. (Note: the article contained erroneous information implying that King didn't have regular season experience, although the infobox correctly noted his stats; I've corrected this.)--Arxiloxos (talk) 05:14, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn Thanks, Arxiloxos. If you know how to close this, feel free. John from Idegon (talk) 05:48, 17 November 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 15:28, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wujifa[edit]

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

On notability grounds - it seems this is a very small local cluster of groups that teach internal Chinese movements/meditation. Nothing to indicate notability - I read advertisement thinly disguised as an article. Peter Rehse (talk) 15:09, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 15:09, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My search didn't turn up significant independent coverage of this "practice". It might be possible to merge or redirect this article into another of the Chinese internal arts articles (Neijia). Papaursa (talk) 19:08, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I still am not seeing coverage to meet WP:GNG, so I don't think this deserves a standalone article. However, I'm now more inclined to go with a ~~Redirect~~ since this does appear to fit in with other Chinese internal martial arts. Given the chance, I prefer to redirect rather than delete. Papaursa (talk) 04:51, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For the reasons mentioned in my latest post below, I am removing my redirect vote and reinstalling my delete vote--at least until someone comes up with good independent significant coverage. Papaursa (talk) 22:01, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP In my opinion that this seems notable, there are independent citations. According to the guidelines an article can be a work in progress and still be valid. I am a wujifa practitioner of 7 plus years and work with a small group in Melbourne Australia, one of many groups I am aware of from around the world. User: JackRyan3095

— JackRyan3095 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

KEEP I started practicing Tai-chi Chuan before the internet was born. I’ve been on the internet and monitoring martial arts and qigong groups from the beginning. I first heard about this “Wujifa” in relation to Yichuan about 10 years ago. With the rise of blogs and forums, I’ve seen wujifa mentioned more than several times across the martial arts spectrum as an art that provides insights into internal martial arts training.

In terms of notability, this entry meets the “Significant Coverage” criteria: what has been written so far does address the topic directly and in detail. The entry is “Reliable” in that independently published secondary “Sources” are cited that are also “independent of the subject”. This entry does not include “advertising, press releases, or autobiographies”.

This entry is "fair and balanced" and no more serves as a promotion or advertisement than do the entries for Tai-chi Chuan, Yi-chuan and Qi-gong. And so, this entry complies with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy.

I’ve read and re-read the Wikipedia entries for Tai-chi Chuan, Yi-chuan, and QiGong and this Wujifa entry is consistent with those entries albeit, a little on the “lite” side. If you really understand Tai-chi and QiGong history and practice, then you would realize that the Tai-chi and QiGong entries collectively represent a populist misunderstanding even though these entries meet Wikipedia’s criteria and persist as notable entries.

I find no such populist misunderstanding in anything that has been written so far in this entry. My only concern is that the authors have not sufficiently elucidated the details of this internal art. My suggestion would be to review this entry again in a year after they have time to further develop this entry.

And so for these reasons, I vote to KEEP this entry because it DOES MEET the standards established by Wikipedia. User: TooTallMike —Preceding undated comment added 19:09, 12 November 2013 (UTC) — TooTallMike (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Would you please specify the significant coverage that is independent, i.e. from people in no way connected to wujifa or its teachings? Papaursa (talk) 19:45, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The older references that I remember seeing from the old GeoCities and other Bulletin Boards are lost to history. However, I was able to find some more recent entries that I think fit the criteria of not being "produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it."

As you know, many martial arts originated in and were handed down through the oral tradition. Of course this always creates a problem for us academic types who base authority on written documentation, on independent coverage.

Speaking of “independent coverage”, I would bet that many contributors to Wikipedia's Tai-chi, Ba-gua, Yi-chuan entries ARE practitioners of those arts who are citing other practitioner authors! And I would bet that many of these contributors have skin in the game too! So I think that the martial arts, yoga, qigong, these kinds of entries are a little different animal than say, the entries on Ford’s Model T, Daniel Tosh, Miley Cyrus or even current boxers or MMA fighters.

And if I understand the guidelines correctly, Wiki pages are not the beginning and end all. Lacking citations is not a reason alone to delete a page. These authors have citations. Any page is a work in progress. People will continue to find citations and further citations will be created over time.

http://www.amazon.com/Princeton-Dictionary-Buddhism-Robert-Buswell/dp/0691157863/ The Princeton Dictionary of Buddhism Princeton University Press, Nov 4, 2013 By Robert E. Buswell Jr., Donald S. Lopez Jr. page 1126, Chinese Cross-References "Wujifa 無記法. See AVYAKRTADHARMA"

http://www.goldenlotus.org/Images/homePage/Prog.GuideNov12-April13sm.pdf Song of the Morning: A Yoga Retreat of Excellence November 2012 - April 2013 Program Guide Yoga for Facial Glow, Inner Beauty and More with Ramesh Narula GSME, MBA Jan. 18-20 Enjoy an integrated practice based upon Yoga Asanas, Patanjali Yoga Sutras, Marma Points of Ayurveda, A Course in Miracles, Creativity Techniques, and Wujifa. Learn about creating your own daily practice, uniquely tailored to your body type, age, flexibility and inclination. Fee: $100

http://www.eawfest.com/products.html Change your Posture, Change your Life. Qi Gong Dan Hoffman is a student of Somatic Psychology, which is the way in which our minds and bodies interface to create our experience in the world. He has been studying Qigong for nearly 7 years in the Wujifa system, and teaching for 4. He is a firm believer in embodied practices as a gateway to a more free and authentic life - as the body becomes more free through awareness and diligent practice, so too do other aspects of the individual. He is working on his Masters and Ph. D. degrees at Santa Barbara Graduate Institute, and continues to travel a path of embodied self-discovery at the School of Cultivation and Practice in Plymouth, MI.

http://eric-taichi.blogspot.com/2012/09/what-i-read-tai-chi-and-qigong.html Blogs Here are the blogs I regularly read, a brief description, and what I get from it. Internal Gong Fu, by Mike Buhr In this blog, you can read about Mike's journey as he learns about the whole-body techniques of wujifa. He is very open about his successes and failures in applying the techniques he is learning. He writes a lot, typically about 5 or 6 new articles each month.

http://jianghu.burningpearl.com/?cat=44&paged=3 Friday, December 11th, 2009 Tabbycat says taiji is pure energy, get the body out of the way. Rick at Wujifa speaks of fascia, and connection. Scott talks about the big muscles of the back.

http://www.ttem.org/forum/index.php?PHPSESSID=5lemuhcja2llues8885k143ls5&topic=2822.0 Wujifa youtube exercise on relaxing the shoulder May 1, 2013 Nice example of using new ideas to get the *feel* for internal aspects. Balancing innovation with being true to the arts is always a challenge .. but the opposite way of "photocopying a photocopy" out of fear kills arts fast. www.youtube.com/watch?v=RAMPyA5FGEQ

http://www.martialdevelopment.com/blog/how-to-learn-zhan-zhuang-from-a-book/ How to Learn Zhan Zhuang From a Book Comment by wujimon // Jan 20, 2010 For people interested in more material, I would HIGHLY recommend checking out: Zhan Zhuang Alignment | Wujifa. Great article discussing structure and alignment! User: TooTallMike —Preceding undated comment added 21:52, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please just vote once. You might want to check the Wikipedia essays on verifiability (WP:V) and reliable sources (WP:RS). I'm seeing blogs, online reviews, ads for seminars, etc. What I'm not seeing are independent reliable sources giving significant coverage of wujifa. Papaursa (talk) 04:51, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of significant coverage, the sources listed above are all clearly interested parties, other than possibly a definition, sounds like a little OR too. Nothing notable about subject of article. - - MrBill3 (talk) 11:52, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect Nothing shows this should have its own article.Mdtemp (talk) 17:25, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can see there's not a ton of academic-like references but there are a few books that mention Wujifa.

The Phoenix Tastes a Lot Like Chicken. ASIN: B00DSOJWDG (A book about Taoism and Meditation)

Secrets of the Pelvis for Martial Arts: A Practical Guide for Improving Your Wujifa, Taiji, Xingyi, Bagua and Everyday Life. ASIN: B00C14WO5W (A book about physiology)

The Princeton Dictionary of Buddhism ISBN 10: 0691157863 ("the most comprehensive and authoritative dictionary of Buddhism ever produced in English")

By the way when you look at the original Yi-Chuan entry, there was only a story with no references! http://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yiquan&oldid=11302713

Contributors built on this story over the years and when you look at the current Yi-Chuan entry, there is still only one book referenced which isn't even a book about the Yi-Chuan of the founder, Wang Xiang-zai! The "About the Author" section of this reference states, "Master Lam's life-long study has brought together many strands of China's martial arts heritage. These influences are reflected in his own style of Da Cheng Chuan, presented in this book." And on page 158, Master Lam states how he changed everything, "using the forms I already knew but with a new power".

So it seems to me that this reference is not a reliable reference for Yi-Chuan since it sounds like Master Lam adapted his understanding of Yi-Chuan into his own system. And so the current Yichuan page is actually an unreferenced advertisement for the Yi-Chuan schools listed! And yet, I see no one calling to delete this page.

Therefore, I really don't understand what the difficulty is with citations concerning this wujifa page. The wujifa page has much better documentation than the original or current Yi-Chuan page. Is there a particular reason why what has been provided is less notable than what was and is provided at the Yi-chuan page?

Also, from what I'm learning, Wujifa is much broader in scope and much different than Neijia and so would not be a good fit on the Neijia page. Wujifa has a philosophic and meditative element that can directly link to Yogacara Buddhism. Wujifa references cutting edge science and talks about developing fascial connections and developing mind-body connectedness. It looks like Wujifa can be practiced for a variety of purposes. It can be practiced as an internal martial art but it does not claim to be a martial art. The way I understand it is that Neijia could be explored as one of the many paths of Wujifa but Wujifa is not Neijia. User: TooTallMike

Discussion of other article is irrelevant to this discussion. - - MrBill3 (talk) 03:01, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this article. Wujifa is notable. It meets WP:GNG, i.e., it has received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." As noted in WP:GNG, "Significant coverage is more than a passing mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." Articles and book(s) cited in the article and in a post above meet the criterion of significant coverage. At least one book cited discusses the topic in depth. Depth is important. "The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered." WP:ORGDEPTH. As stated in WP:WHYN, "We require 'significant coverage' in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic." There is more than ample material available in the cited sources alone for an in-depth, whole article. There is significantly more material available online. Wujifa is a topic of discussion among independent martial artists. See, e.g., discussion starting 10-10-13 in respected "6H" group at https://www.facebook.com/groups/349208698527821/. The sources cited in the article are "reliable", "third-party", "secondary sources" within the meaning of WP:RS and guidelines cited therein, with the single exception of the reference to Taracks' website, which may be reasonably classed as a primary source. "Primary sources can be reliable, and they can be used." WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD. As noted therein, a primary source may be "even the best possible source" when used in appropriate circumstances, such as when a company website is used for "information about what the company says about itself and for most basic facts about its history, products, employees, finances, and facilities." Ibid. The use of the Tarack's site falls squarely within example. Further, there is the matter of common sense. When using a guideline (such as that on notability in WP:GNG), it is important that the guideline not be applied blindly, but that, as the guideline itself says, "it is best treated with common sense." WP:NN. The intent behind the given guideline is important to bear in mind. The explicit intent behind the "reliable source" guideline is "so that we can be confident that we're not passing along random gossip, perpetuating hoaxes, or posting indiscriminate collections of information." WP:WHYN. No source cited in the article comes remotely close to creating such a risk. Wikipedia guidelines make clear that our knowledge and experience bear directly on commenting, especially with respect to AFD nominations and discussions. We are advised to "consider not participating if: A nomination involves a topic with which you are unfamiliar." WP:AFDFORMAT. In this light, please permit me a personal note to provide context for my comments. I am American. I live in Taiwan. I have practiced various martial arts, including Yiquan, for 50 years, some on, some off. I have taught Asian philosophy at university and international law in law school. I have taught taijiquan in the parks. This is only to say that I am somewhat broadly familiar with Asia and specifically familiar with some martial arts that seem not terribly distant from Wujifa. My exposure to Wujifa came from reading a book and from various online sources. On inquiry, I heard of people practicing Wujifa in Taiwan, although I do not know them. Further, I have had discussions of Wujifa practices and principles with my colleagues and teachers in Taiwan, in Hong Kong, and in the US. This is to say, I find this topic "notable" in both senses of the word as used in WP:ORIGIN, it is both "worthy of note" and it is "attracting notice." From the materials I have read and seen, Wujifa, in its internal and martial aspects, seems to be a development from, and a legitimate successor to Yiquan. However, it seems to incorporate and build on a broader, more comprehensive foundation in contemporary physiology and science. As such, an article on it would more properly stand alone than be merged into other articles on internal martial arts. This is not to say that I think this article, as it stands, is just fine. It is not. It needs more depth, more explanation of principles and practice, more explanation of the historical context. I assume that, like Wikipedia itself, it is a work in progress. WP:WIP. For the reasons above, we should keep the article, and allow its author(s) to expand it, which I would hope they do. mkriegel (talk) 10:40, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

— Mkriegel (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment Besides a number a single purpose accounts with long involved posts Wujifa appears to be the creation of Richard Taracks and not a term permeating chinese martial arts. There does not seem to be a large number of groups practicing his creation and there is no coverage by reliable secondary sources. Forum and blog posts have the same reliability as Youtube videos which is essentially none.Peter Rehse (talk) 14:31, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment These points are well taken. I believe I was undoubtedly mistaken to categorize this as a 'Chinese Martial Art'. I propose a re-categorization to 'North American Martial Arts' seeing that the founder is from the USA and it was developed in the USA. I also propose a re-wording of the section:

"Wujifa (Chinese: 無極法) is a practice which often takes the form of a martial art, qigong and/or meditation. Wujifa encompasses the principles of internal (nèijiā) movement and connection." to: "Wujifa (Chinese: 無極法) is a movement modality which utilizes various methods, both physical and psychological, to encourage the use of the whole body in movement. The art of Wujifa encompasses principles which are found in many (nèijia) arts."

I believe it was poor editing on my part and should be deemed rectified by making those changes to the article and include more depth, explanation of principles/practice, and historical context. It is a work in progress and I am confident of its notability as described in the notability section of the WP:GNG. Trevor Caruso (talk) 8:57, 15 November 2013 (PST)

I left a message on your talk page and also changed the category as you suggest. It really is a question of references which should be added to the article in addition to any other changes you need to make.Peter Rehse (talk) 17:21, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Every source that mentions wujifa links it to a Chinese internal art, plus the article describes wujifa in terms of Neijia, so linking it to other Chinese interal arts was a natural, albeit erroneous, thing to do. However, this article now has nothing to link to and still lacks the necessary sources to meet WP:GNG. I have no problem with someone keeping a copy in their sandbox until they can improve it with independent sources. Papaursa (talk) 22:01, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP "Significant coverage" Wujifa is a legitimate martial art. I have followed some of its practices via online tutorials on youtube. I have also worked directly with its practitioners. In being a practitioner of brazilian jiujitsu, jeet kune do, kickboxing, and many other combat martial arts I would say that the fact I can practice this martial art, and it has a structure and philosophy it is a legitimate martial art. Wikipedia should not determine authenticity of a martial art due to an internet search, but it actually existing. This is how information is given, not by popularity but existing. In fact denying information due to lack of information on the internet is more the reason to show legitimate martial arts that don't get attention.

— SteveMayeda (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 17:27, 15 November 2013 (UTC).[reply]

The comment above does not provide any example of significant coverage. Those stating the subject is notable have not provided sources and the material from those sources that establish notability. I think it goes without saying but facebook groups... Taracks site might be a source for an article on Tarack but in the context of this article it is promotional verging on advert. The other references mentioned earlier are better but seem to contain only passing mentions. - - MrBill3 (talk) 06:46, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Let's summarize where we are. The Deleters say the article doesn't meet criteria. The Keepers offer evidence. The Deleters say "No". The Keepers try again. The Deleters say "No". The Keepers try again. The Deleters say "No". This kind of exchange doesn't strike me as being very instructive or productive. Therefore, could Peter Rehse, Papaursa, MrBill3, Mdtemp, please provide explicit examples and links which you are upholding as examples of the criteria which you would like to see met here and please also provide a brief explanation of why your example meets criteria? I think this might contribute to a much more functional discussion. User: TooTallMike —Preceding undated comment added 23:59, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. In particular, I think it would be a very good idea for the various parties here to give explicit answers to the questions raised in TooTallMike's summary. DGG ( talk ) 04:54, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I previously stated why TooTallMike's list of blogs, online reviews, and seminar ads didn't make for significant coverage in reliable independent sources. User Mkriegel supplied a Facebook link, definitely not a reliable source. User SteveMayeda maintained that it exists so it must be notable and that a WP listing is necessary so that "legitimate martial arts" can get attention. However, WP is not a web hosting site or for promoting one's favorite whatever. Papaursa (talk) 05:17, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The walls of text posted above as Keep arguments by fans of the subject are certainly ringing endorsements that they like it or they practice it, but the references provided do not appear to satisfy the requirements of the notability guideline for multiple reliable and independent sources with significant coverage. Merger to an appropriate article on martial arts, if one can be identified, is a possibility. This would seem to be one instance of the widespread principle that internal focus is needed for success in skilled performance, as opposed to just skill exercises, which is common to advanced levels of sports, athletics, and music. Edison (talk) 14:21, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Keep this Wujifa article because it meets notability. There are multiple reliable and independent sources with significant coverage. See the three books:

The Phoenix Tastes a Lot Like Chicken. ASIN: B00DSOJWDG

Secrets of the Pelvis for Martial Arts: A Practical Guide for Improving Your Wujifa, Taiji, Xingyi, Bagua and Everyday Life. ASIN: B00C14WO5W

The Princeton Dictionary of Buddhism ISBN 10: 0691157863

Would Peter Rehse, Papaursa, MrBill3, Mdtemp, and Edison please explain why your personal interpretation of the notability guidelines would consider three books which cover Wujifa, as not meeting notability guidelines? Do you consider books to not be notable?

Since we are discussing notability, it would be helpful to see specific examples of WP articles which you interpret as examples that meet the WP:N notability criteria. Simply repeating the mantra of "does not meet notability" is not contributing to "a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached."User: TooTallMike —Preceding undated comment added 21:09, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I looked, or tried to, at the sources you mentioned. I can't find a copy of "The Phoenix tastes like Chicken". However, the Princeton dictionary's comments on wujifa are "See AVYAKRTADHARMA". One line definitions do not make for significant coverage. In "Secrets of the Pelvis ..." there is a one page section on wujifa which consists mainly of a three paragraph quote lifted directly from wujifa.com and that isn't what I call an independent source. I've tried to engage in dialogue, but I haven't seen any responses showing how the coverage is independent and significant. Instead I see these long missives that add nothing. Supporters may want to read WP:TLDR. Not arguing that it exists, merely that nothing so far has shown it's notable. The subject also seems to fail the martial arts notability criteria at WP:MANOTE. If you want to see a martial arts article that meets WP:N then look at karate. Papaursa (talk) 01:19, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Papursa's comment. Quote from promotional website pasted into book is not independent. See... is clearly just passing mention. The Pheonix Tastes Like Chicken is a self published ebook (available on Amazon, free loan with Prime btw) and does not meet criteria for establishing notability.

Examples of sources that might support notability: a chapter in a notable book on martial arts, a series of articles in significant martial arts magazines or journals, a journal article about the subject, newspaper or magazine articles in significant publications. I would even go so far as to include discussion of the subject by notable persons in published interviews. WP policies and guidelines are clear, they have been referenced in this discussion. It would be helpful if "supporters" would provide sources and material from sources that support notability in brief if pleading for acceptance of questionable sources, again a brief reason supporting the sources. Personal interest and experience is not relevant. The discussion is notability per WP. - - MrBill3 (talk) 02:38, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment re Edison's comment above. I, for one, appreciate the understanding shown in the first part of the post. However, I disagree with the last part ("one instance..."). In my experience, what is stated is not a correct view re sports in general or martial arts or music. It is exactly the distinctive content of what goes on inside that matters. Under such an interpretation as seems to be proposed, the cathedral of Notre Dame in Paris would be but "one instance" of "a building with stuff inside"... and its article would be merged, along with a thousand other articles, into one article on "buildings". However, to me, at least, the content of what is inside the building matters a lot, and is precisely what gives it interest to those of us interested in religion, much as the walls give it interest to those of us interested in architecture, etc. Likewise, what is goes on inside Wujifa is precisely what makes it of interest. To say that its "internal focus" is but what "is common to advanced levels of sports, athletics, and music" is simply not accurate, either with respect to Wujifa or to the other disciplines as well. First, under such an interpretation, I would worry that the "internal focus" expounded in the world's major religions, for example, would then require us to merge into one very large article the current articles on religion. (And perhaps those on mathematics as well!) Second, as someone who has both participated in and taught different sports in his life, what is taught in the "internal focus" of each really is different, both in manner and content. I will spare us all a description of "inside American football" and "inside Taijiquan", but perhaps you can imagine. Likewise, zazen and contemplative prayer both have "internal focus". As someone who has done both, they are, however, not the same, and they merit separate articles, despite "internal focus". Third, although I only recently came across Wujifa, what is inside Wujifa is different from what is inside, say, Tae Kwan Do, or Taijiquan, or even Yiquan, all of which I have practiced at different times in my long life. I, and my MA colleagues in Taiwan and the US have found that inside to have significant and distinctive value, a value that informs my own practice of Yiquan and Taijiquan, as well as my teaching of them. And, fwiw, I came across Wijifa independently in the articles, book, and, yes, discussion forums (which may indeed have value; "guidelines" are just that, guides, not rigid rules), as cited above. Thank you for your comments, and also for reading mine. mkriegel (talk) 00:41, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment First, thank you to Papaursa and MrBill3! I appreciate you explaining your understanding of notability. Now I understand where you're coming from! I apologize if my this comment is a little long. I don't know how to make it shorter and get the point across.

I am a Tai-chi guy who is trying to figure out this whole "internal strength" thing. I actually read the entire "Secrets of the Pelvis" book. Let me share with you what I found.

Wujifa is mentioned repeatedly throughout the book as is Tai-chi Chuan, Xing-yi Chuan, and Bagua Chuan as well as other western therapeutic modalities.

The book includes original Chinese excerpts AND translations as well as many excerpts from American authors. This book reads like an in-depth investigation into how the pelvis (aka dan-tian, hara) should function as it is described by both American and Chinese martial artists. Please consider the following:

In the Preface section, "In Taijiquan, one of the higher level kinesthetic skillsets is called "peng". In Wujifa, this quality is called "connection"; whole-body connection."

In the Introduction, "The orientation of this book is primarily based on my training in Wujifa."

Chapter 3 (pg 9) does include copied text from the wujifa home page since this is a brief chapter referencing the primary source of wujifa information online. (Papaursa referred to this section.)

Chapter 5 (pg 13) mentions wujifa in reference to abdominal breathing.

Chapter 8 (pg 22) says, "In Wujifa, training focuses on developing fascial connectedness."

And you'll find more references on pages: 49, 51, 52, 54, 57, 67, 83, 83, 99.

From what I've read, the fundamental practice of Wujifa is zhan zhuang. The author says on page 67 "when I began...practicing Wujifa zhan zhuang." and on page 84, "When I practice my Wujifa zhan zhuang".

If this book is not notable, then maybe a search on Wujifa should get a redirect to the zhan zhuang article?? http://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=Zhan_zhuang

Given the scope and content of this book, would you consider this book to be notable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TooTallMike (talk • contribs) 18:07, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment' I originally read the article as an organization not a term - as a term a redirect to Zhan zhuang makes sense. Does this term predate the organization.Peter Rehse (talk) 18:14, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment' Peter, maybe this example will add some clarity.

Look at Hunyuan. The term Hunyuan is a central concept in Daoist philosophy. Hunyuan Tai-chi is the name of a practice based on Hunyuan philosophy. It is also the name of a Chen Style form: Xinyi Hun Yuan broadsword. It looks like Wujifa is a similar beast. The term Wujifa is a central concept in Buddhist/Chinese philosophy. Wujifa is the name of a practice based on Wujifa philosophy.

There are other examples, the term Zen (and philosophy) is different from the practice of Zen whose main practice is sitting meditation. The term Tai-chi (and philosophy) is different from the practice of Tai-chi whose main practice is forms. You get the idea. I don't mean to muddy the waters but it seems that the answer depends on how you look at it.

One thing that is clear is that the primary practice of wujifa is their form of zhan zhuang. I think this is similar to how Xing-yi has their form of stance practice, and Yi-chuan has their form of zhan zhuang, etc... Wujifa has a form of zhan zhuang practice as well.TooTallMike —Preceding undated comment added 20:33, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment' Oops, and by the way, there is a precedence to listing martial art styles on the Zhan zhuang page. You can see mentioned: Tai-chi Chuan, Qigong, Neijia (internal kungfu), Yichuan, and Xingyiquan.TooTallMike —Preceding undated comment added 20:48, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. G12 — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:32, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Herman Benjamin[edit]

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

No clear notability established; requires fundamental rewrite to become encyclopedic. smileguy91^talk 03:23, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7. Bbb23 (talk) 19:42, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tauranga Blogosphere[edit]

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

No clear notability established. smileguy91^talk 03:19, 17 November 2013 (UTC) Please define 'No clear notability esyablished'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lofangas (talk • contribs) 04:26, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per A7. Cannot see how this remotely passes WP:GNG, WP:NWEB, and more specifically WP:WEBCRIT. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:25, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:52, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:52, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:53, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree, there isn't even that much basic information so I'll go ahead and tag it as A7. Even some preliminary searches didn't provide anything (unless it's a system bias issue). Though if it's a "series of blogs", it's probably not notable at all. SwisterTwister talk 19:00, 17 November 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 Google+. Usually, the edit history of a redirected article doesn't need to be deleted unless there is a specific reason for doing so. ~~I have added a hat note at Google+ and a hat note at g++ too, just for good measure~~. v/r (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 02:58, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

G+[edit]

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

Basically this is a WP:TWODABS situation. Although Plus (TV channel) used to use that name ("G+") in the past, the channel stop existing ten years ago. I doubt that someone searching for "G+" is looking for the British-only channel. Therefore "G+" now refers to Google+ and it is what readers are searching. I propose the deletion of the disambiguation page, redirect "G+" to "Google+", and add there the hatnote {{for}}. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 02:47, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 02:49, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and redirect. This proposal is strange, in that I think this is what it is proposing. If Google+ is now the primary topic for "G+" (and that seems plausible to me, yep), then the page G+ does not need to be deleted, but rather edited to become a redirect to Google+. This will preserve the edit history. Then hatnote Google+, as proposed. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:40, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and redirect and hatnote Google+. This really shouldn't have been made as a deletion discussion, but since it's already here, we may as well keep going. Novusuna ^talk 21:21, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - should there be any mention of g++ (a redirect)? Chris857 (talk) 00:56, 18 November 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 prejudice towards a merge discussion. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:04, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Spoo[edit]

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

Article has no significant coverage outside of materials related to the series; real-world references are largely trivial (a spoof of South Park, a rap-filk artist, and a licensed cookbook). Fails GNG as there are no significant third-party sources discussing the topic presented. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:03, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nominators arguments. This is non-notable fancruft cited to Babylon 5 sources and message forums. Sionk (talk) 23:44, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not only does it have plenty of RS coverage, in the form of at least four dead-tree published books, it is...
- Currently a good article. No good article review has been proposed.
- A former featured article that was delisted (and rightly so) after the criteria changed.
- The April Fool's featured article from 2006.
The nominator also tried to PROD it against policy, nominated it without placing any tags requesting improvement, fails to articulate any search for sources per WP:BEFORE, and has not engaged on the talk page. The nominator also fails to consider options for merging or redirecting per deletion policy. Jclemens (talk) 01:57, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Jclemens, good or featured article criteria don't mention notability. Whether an article has gone through such a process is immaterial. You're arguing rules rather than content. Can you provide more info on these books helping the article meet GNG? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 04:18, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I own three of them--not the RPG one, however; I have them about 20' from me. You, too, can buy them entirely cheap off of Amazon or a bookseller of your choice, just like I did solely for the purposes of upgrading Wikipedia's content on Babylon 5. I used them to rewrite the article almost entirely when I took if from a de-featured article back to GA. The mere presence of as many sources I already included in the article already refutes the central premise of your nomination--that is, that the topic is not covered extensively in reliable sources and hence does not meet the GNG. The fact that you've just admitted never having read them or searched for them before nominating does tend to emphasize that this nomination has no merit. You should know better. Jclemens (talk) 07:12, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You'd be of great help if you could provide the quotes for the offline mentions. The contorted wording of the article suggests the book references are about the Babylon 5 episodes, rather than 'extensive' (or any) coverage about Spoo. To be honest, I'd change my comment to a 'weak keep' if I beleived a number of the book sources gave significant coverage about spoo. On the basis that the bulk of the article is based on a fan forum it strongly suggests the subject doesn't warrant its own article. Sionk (talk) 11:42, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a minute--someone nominates an article for deletion, and it somehow becomes my obligation to spoon feed you the evidence? Per WP:OFFLINE your obligation is actually to go get your own copy--library, including interlibrary loan, is recommended. Still, I'll give you one: "G'Kar intercepts a consignment of fresh spoo -- which no Centauri would ever be seen dead eating -- and realizes that a Narn must be held captive somewhere in the Palace." Lane 1999, p. 147. "Spoo, the clue that triggers Londo and G'Kar into realising that there is a Narn prisoner in the palace, has been mentioned several times previously in this series, most notably in epsidodes 101 ('Midnight on the Firing Line') and 203 ('The Geometry of Shadows')" Lane 1999, p. 148. Jclemens (talk) 03:59, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say it was your obligation, I simply said it would be a great help. Sionk (talk) 12:25, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jclemens, those citations do not present any evidence that the subject is notable per GNG. Those are plot recaps, which I would never use to suggest an episode of B5, Star Trek, et al was notable,l let alone a food featured in those episodes. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:56, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and nominate for GAR first if desired. BOZ (talk) 04:32, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:59, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Jclemens, It is/was a WP:FA & WP:GA so it deserves keeping IMO.. Davey2010T 01:15, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Babylon 5 contact does not make it automatically non-notable.
Keep per Jclemens. Sufficient sources, and its relevance to things outside B5 strengthens the argument for a separate article. --Arxiloxos (talk) 05:48, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG; the fact that it is a GA and a former FA is not a reason to keep. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 18:35, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Delete - It lacks actual sources discussing the topic, and it relies essentially on minor trivia not constituting significant coverage. Assuming there is an article it wouldn't clutter, like something describing interactions between the writers and fans, trimming the "Origin" section to a small paragraph and merging it seems like the best option. The "Real-world references" section is pure trivia. I could get mentioning if it were a significant plot point in a South Park episode, but relying on a minor spoof of South Park that probably doesn't even constitute an article for itself is just scraping through the bottom of the barrel, through the crust, and into the mantel. TTN (talk) 21:29, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Coverage in RS is sufficient to satisfy the general notability guideline. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 23:36, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of meeting WP:GNG, many of the keeps reeks like ILIKEIT, being a GA (which I have no idea how) isn't a reason to keep the article. Secret ^account 15:35, 24 November 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 Features of the Marvel Universe. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:22, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Darkmoor[edit]

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

This does not establish notability independent of Marvel Comics through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 18:50, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge into Features of the Marvel Universe. BOZ (talk) 04:46, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:55, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Features of the Marvel Universe. Not independently notable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:14, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Tiny Toon Adventures characters#Hamton J. Pig. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:15, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hamton J. Pig[edit]

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

This does not establish notability independent of Tiny Toon Adventures through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 21:10, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep major character. Just re-write such articles instead. J 1982 (talk) 22:06, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Characters status doesn't mater in establishing notability for an article, only sources. There are times when a minor character has more for an article than a major character. This does not have sources, so there is nothing to fix. TTN (talk) 22:08, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I thought, but then Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zack Martin was kept. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:28, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@NinjaRobotPirate: That's only because I totally screwed the pooch by nominating them all in different AfDs instead of bundling them. It made commenting too hard. Trust me, I intend to nominate those again in the near future. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 18:43, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Tiny Toon Adventures characters#Hamton J. Pig. Not notable. Gets only a handful of hits on Google News. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:32, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:45, 17 November 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 Valiant_Comics#Valiant_Universe. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:15, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Spider Alien[edit]

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

This does not establish notability independent of Valiant Comics through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 22:47, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:40, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Valiant_Comics#Valiant_Universe. Not independently notable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:35, 17 November 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. postdlf (talk) 23:26, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Republican Party vice presidential candidate selection, 2012[edit]

View AfD · Stats

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Republican Party vice presidential candidate selection, 2012

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

AFD #2 was closed as "merge" in November 2012. An editor unmerged it in July 2013 without any apparent discussion. This page is full of WP:CRYSTALBALL guesses, which aren't encyclopedic. Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012 appears to have all the necessary information, and this is not a likely search term, so I believe it should be deleted. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:24, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:24, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:25, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:33, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article just collects a lot of vague media speculation at the time, all of which was and is irrelevant since the only view that mattered was Romney's and he only seriously considered a handful of people. Some of the entries put in the article show a lack of understanding of American politics on the part of the WP editors involved: for example, there was never even a remote chance that Romney would pick Rand Paul or Nikki Haley or Donald Trump (!). The subject can be adequately dealt with in Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012#Vice-presidential selection and does not need a separate article. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:21, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In politics, what people think is true is nearly as important as reality itself, and the speculation itself is therefore notable. Also, the Romney team's actual thought process could be added to this article now that new information is coming out about that, which would really flesh out this article. So the subject is definitely notable. -LtNOWIS (talk) 09:39, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per rationale of LtNOWIS above. Obviously satisfies WP:GNG.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 18:37, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 23:29, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject is notable and easily passes WP:GNG. A main objection from the earlier Afd's - before the article was retitled and refocused (full disclosure: by me) - was that it was misleading because it implied that there were "candidates", even though none (save the eventual nominee) had actually been nominated or were actively seeking office. That has been rectified, the article's subject is now the veep candidate selection process rather than the "candidates". Per LtNOWIS, there may be room for improvement and additional information, but there is significant press coverage of the speculation about, and the eventual selection of, the vp nominee. So notability is clearly established.--JayJasper (talk) 22:49, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional comment: Note that there is clear precedent for such an article (Republican Party vice presidential candidate selection, 2008, Democratic Party vice presidential candidate selection, 2008, Democratic Party vice presidential candidate selection, 2004). Yes, I know WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a valid argument for keeping, but given the longstanding protocol of maintaining symmetry among the U.S. election articles, it would seem prudent to nominate all these articles together and they should be all be either kept, deleted, or merged/redirected as a unit - given that all are comparable in content and sourcing.--JayJasper (talk) 22:49, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:37, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is important and notable as shown by sources. Kitfoxxe (talk) 14:49, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't like it. Nope nope nope. But there are independently published sources galore dealing substantially with the subject which attest that this is a notable topic. The fact that it was merged once before does not mean that it must be merged for all time. In fact, given the ponderous bloat showing in the sourcing, I can't recommend it. Carrite (talk) 23:50, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The topic is definitely notable and worthy of inclusion, but I'm concerned that this article primarily focuses on speculation by the media. The rest of the article doesn't necessarily add much that wouldn't be covered by the main page about the election. If there was more direct info from the Romney campaign about the vetting process, I would support keeping this article. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 17:50, 18 November 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. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:24, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Nightmare[edit]

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

Only reference is to MobyGames. A web search turns up only references on game download sites, wikis, blogs, etc. Cannot find any secondary coverage. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:58, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There does not appear to be an official website related to the game. I shall try to find reception scores and reviews that qualify. Give a week or two and you need not delete the article. Deltasim (talk) 18:05, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AfD allows at least 7 days for discussion, and articles can be relisted to extend the discussion. As far as I understand it, no article in AfD is deleted during this time unless it meets CSD. If you need more time, you can always move it to user space and then back when you find sources to support it.--Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:20, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Magazine reviews have been added. Is there any other evidence you require me to find? Deltasim (talk) 18:46, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:38, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A quick Google search shows it should easily pass WP:NGAMES. The "autocomplete" knew I was referring to the video game when I was halfway through typing the second word... with results like "game," "walkthrough," "cheats," etc. I feel this at the least proves some extent of popularity. The other three games in the Elvira series also all have their own WP articles. Searching news archives does not yield much, but given it's age and the genericness of the name I'd imagine that'd be the case, e.g. you'll find sports games that were described as some athlete's "personal nightmare." I think this article merely needs more references added, as finding them doesn't seem to be a problem. Beyond that I see nothing qualifying WP:DEL-REASON. — MusikAnimal ^talk 22:07, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notability established by the new sources in the article plus the ones at MobyGames. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 14:38, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:27, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep not the most notable thing ever but appears to have been widely reviewed in its day. I don't quite see why the article doesn't mention Elvira when the MG page makes it really clear this is an Elvira game. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:28, 17 November 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) –Seth Allen (discussion/ contributions) 04:22, Monday, November 18, 2013 (UTC).

Wheel 2000[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This article is about a non-notable game show spin-off. Its contents are nothing more than cruft, trivia, original research, and unverifiable information. The gameplay rules, in their entirety, cannot be reliably sourced in any way. —Seth Allen (discussion/contributions), Saturday, November 2, 2013, 20:14 U.T.C.

Keep Major-network TV shows are generally notable, and this aired on both CBS and GSN, and had international adaptations. It wasn't very long lived, so there isn't bound to be too much information out there, but the article does have two reliable sources. Most of the rules are described in Encyclopedia of TV Game Shows. I fail to see how listing the stunts is any different than giving a rundown of the various rules currently in place on Wheel of Fortune proper — 1/2 Car tags, Express, Mystery, etc. Certainly not fancruft, more like a plot summary. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:03, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Wheel 2000, if it is notable at all, does not merit a separate article from the main Wheel of Fortune article. None of the show's international adaptations are verifiable against a reliable source, and neither is the 12-city tour. So I'd say that all that Wheel 2000 needs in Wikipedia is a subsection in Wheel of Fortune (U.S. game show)#Broadcast history. —Seth Allen (discussion/contributions), Saturday, November 2, 2013, 22:51 U.T.C.
  - This source verifies the 12 city tour. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:57, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:44, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:44, 3 November 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, | Uncle Milty | talk | 14:51, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Major network TV show indeed. This isn't some special tour or week-long tournament, it's an entirely separate show -- a spinoff for kids. For precedent, see the wide array of Jeopardy articles linked to at Template:Jeopardy!, including special tournaments and themed shows. Granted, those examples don't make sources magically appear for this one but I did find a few below --Rhododendrites (talk) 16:08, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Animation's New Toon - a 2 page article in the LA Times about the virtual co-host Lucky/technology of the show.
- Instant Cartoon: Just Add Actor... - CNN Money article about Lucy and a couple other shows
- Last (and least), the web is chock full of these sorts of sites with rules, images, videos, etc. They're not pretty, but perhaps game show fans have one or two of these that have proven reliable (I don't know): Game Show Central's Wheel of Fortune Timeline 1997

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:15, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ACMEWikiNet (talk) 03:29, 17 November 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:01, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John Marsh (newsreader)[edit]

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

yet another full resume without notability Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 05:16, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:25, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:25, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:25, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:25, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One newspaper article (of unknown source and date) not enough for GNG. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:27, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Radio presenters are in the public eye (in this case ear), so that people like to know who they are. If there is a problem over sourcing, the answer is to tag it for improvement. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:46, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:10, 17 November 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:00, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Food Matters[edit]

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

Tagged for notability for over two years with no improvement; no independent sources; several decent editors have tried and failed to find any decent sources. Basically a straight-to-video propaganda film of no evident significance; it attempts to claim notability by inheritance but notability is not inherited. Guy (Help!) 00:20, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:48, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:48, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:48, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:48, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'd say this lengthy source from the The Gazette establishes notability. There is also some coverage here in The Sunday Star-Times. In this book here, it's called "amazing" and a movie "everyone should see". Not a whole lot, but it's enough to convince me this squeaks past WP:NFILM. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 01:03, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's actually not a "straight-to-video" film, as my Google News archive shows a smattering of articles from newspapers right across North America, related to community screenings. It's enough to satisfy WP:NFILM, I'd agree. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:13, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "a scattering of articles ... related to community showings" is exactly what is meant by non-substantial coverage. The sort of reviews proposed here seem singularly unreliable: the book is a non-notable book, and that the author of one such book likes a particualr film is not a substantial review. DGG ( talk ) 01:45, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:21, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not the strongest case. It's more than just straight-to-video. "has just cracked 100,000 sales and is now airing in more than 30 countries." "has been shown on French channel Canal Plus, after being dubbed into French for broadcast through 27 countries, as well as the Noga TV network in Israel." "It will premiere on the Rialto Channel in New Zealand next month and has also been included on the in-flight entertainment schedule on Singapore Airlines and Air New Zealand flights." All from "Doco dishes up success", Sunshine Coast Daily, 19 January 2010. Croot, James (4 October 2008), "Wake-up call on food quality", The Press (Christchurch) is a good source. This provides more coverage. The maker website's press and media indicates others that could be usable. Gets enough for WP:GNG. duffbeerforme (talk) 05:34, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:05, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. There's not much, but the references we have seem to just barely squeak past WP:GNG. It may be propaganda, but it's far from the only heavily biased film we have an article for. Novusuna ^talk 18:11, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NF. Most coverage is fairly trivial and limited to local papers. Ultimately the film doesn't seem to have had a wide release reviewed by at least two national level film critics, nor has it won any major awards. Betty Logan (talk) 17:33, 20 November 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:58, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

EgyptAir Flight 737[edit]

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

Not notable hijacking. ...William 01:13, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions....William 01:32, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions....William 01:32, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions....William 01:32, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions....William 01:32, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, because this belongs to the chain of events that led to the Libyan–Egyptian War. It's therefore not so much an aviation incident, but rather a political event.[2] I admit that in its current shape, the article is rather useless, but I think it could be greatly improved/expanded.--FoxyOrange (talk) 09:06, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Shouldn't be merged to that, then? Notability is not inherited. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:32, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete already covered in Libyan–Egyptian War and not worth a redirect as it is not actually "Flight 737", source just says it was a Egypt Air Boeing 737. MilborneOne (talk) 12:33, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Flight Number Fixed. AmrTarek (talk) 09:48, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, because it is part of the Libyan-Egyptian War and contains info about one of the Sa'ka Forces's engagements. I can provide more info. AmrTarek (talk) 09:51, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is not inherited from the conflict. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:54, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:05, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it was a notable event in the process of the war. It seems to me that this would very much be like having an article on the Pearl Harbor bombing or other significant event/battle in a war. It could be improved, but that is not a reason for deletion. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:27, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Neither the article or its source make any mention of the Libyan-Egyptian War. Without a source, any claim it being connected to that, is WP:OR....William 01:34, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is a reference in the war article itself that could be easily incorporated. Middle Eastern politics are not my specialty, but I think it is fairly feasible for someone to make this article better than it is now. I really see no reason to delete at this time. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:36, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. It sounds like we already have the references to establish notability, they just need to be incorporated into the article. Novusuna ^talk 17:57, 18 November 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:58, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Smokin Jo[edit]

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

Highly promotional and non-notable. It should be noted that both sources are self submitted articles. Sulfurboy (talk) 06:46, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are not self submitted by the artist herself (PROVE IT), the interview with the Guardian Newspaper journalist is in a (NOTABLE) UK newspaper hence the inclusion, also as she is one of the original DJ's of Trade nightclub it was an extremely important and influential gay club in Gay London during the 1990's which also influenced a lot of other gay business's throughout the UK during this time.

The 'weekender' articles are just profiles of random people in different aspects of life (one day will be a teacher, the next a student, a dog walker, etc.)and, as the note at the bottom of the article would suggest, you must submit the picture and information yourself. Yes, the guardian is a credible source, but I've seen these weekender articles successfully rejected more than once(if another editor could point out an example it'd be appreciated). I'm not sure what you're talking about in the second part of your comment, but it seems as if any suggested notability there would be completely dependent on that nightclub. Sulfurboy (talk) 07:15, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the concept and artistic output of the TRADE brand nationally and globally influenced and changed the direction of a gay subculture certainly in the UK, the relevance of a page for an original artist performing, working, and influencing creative direction at Trade the club and company was huge. --Navops47 (talk) 07:21, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but due to rude comments left on my talk page I have no interest in discussing this with you anymore, as I feel I would not be able to stay neutral or remain calm. If other editor's need me to clarify on something specific about this afd, please let me know. Sulfurboy (talk) 07:26, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note to other editors the sources are not self submitted talk states they are self submitted dialogue's by the artist yet he has not provided one single shred evidence to back up this claim.--Navops47 (talk) 07:44, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete The Grauniad piece is just the sort of piece that conveys notability for a DJ. It's not solely self-submitted, it has some follow-up and an interview with a journo. However there's only one of them and it's very lightweight. The DJ Mag award might swing it too, but there's no detail in this article or sourcing to support it. The tone of this article is way overboard, "one of the most creative and distinctive" and yet there's nothing to back this up. The world is full of DJs, even ones who get to play Cream or MoS, "none of the DJs was female" is just plain wrong and there's no indication that Smokin Jo really meets the level of encyclopedic notability we need (and yes, that applies to almost all of the minor rappers on WP too).

I'm prepared to be swung to a keep instead, but this article isn't doing it as yet. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:18, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I edited it considerably and found another source, but still not quite convinced she's notable. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:11, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:13, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:13, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Although the initial piece was a little thin, I have added her discography, she also worked for BBC Radio 1 for a few years which I think is notable! You do not just get on a national radio station by being one of many average DJ's. Clearly it still needs some work! I have included additional citations --111.223.131.168 (talk) 05:20, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep based on the barest most minimal evidence of notability. Several cited mentions, but I'd very much like to see secondary coverage that really shows the "significant subject" part of notability. If this comes up for deletion again in the next year without such a strong citation, I'd say delete it then.-Markeer 23:59, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:12, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:03, 17 November 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:57, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kendall Gaskins[edit]

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

The article makes no assertion of notability. Kendall Gaskins was an undrafted free agent who was released before playing a single snap of professional football. That's not enough to satisfy WP:NGRIDIRON and there is no non-trivial coverage. There are dozens of such prospective NFL players every year and they aren't notable for being on the preseason team. Further, as an article about a player not in the news (because he's not playing) it's not being updated. At the time I encountered the article on October 23 it still claimed he played for Buffalo, even though he'd been released nearly two months ago. After fixing the references I proposed the article for deletion; the article's author removed the PROD tag on October 29 with a minor edit (no edit summary). That's his right but it's unhelpful. In sum, it's a non-notable stub with no prospect of expansion. Mackensen (talk) 12:30, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NGRIDIRON and any secondary coverage I can find seems to be WP:ROUTINE Sulfurboy (talk) 17:51, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:09, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:09, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree that WP:GRIDIRON is not met, but I believe the subject passes WP:GNG due to the significant amount of coverage for his college career found here. Some of it is routine box scores, but many of them provide much more detail and clearly are beyond the scope of WP:ROUTINE.--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:42, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've been reading through these results and most really are just the variety of "Gaskins ran for an 11-yard TD" or "Gaskins punched it in" which I'd expect from any write-up. What I'm looking for is an article that actually discusses Gaskins. Here's on about him being named Second Team All-CAA, which isn't all that impressive. That being said, he's bouncing around practice squads again (just released by the Titans, NYG is giving him a look). Mackensen (talk) 12:04, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Even that is beyond the scope of WP:ROUTINE. It's clearly more than just sports scores, plus there is a lot of coverage. In this ESPN article, he's the lead mention in the article. Other examples are Gaskins helps Richmond rout Gardner-Webb 41-8 and Gaskins leads Richmond past William & Mary 17-10 and Gaskins, unbeaten Richmond rally past Towson 42-14 from The Sporting News.--Paul McDonald (talk)

That's still just game coverage though. None of these articles are about him; they're recaps of games in which he's played a role. I don't think that's the standard we're supposed to apply. Put another way, there's nothing we can take from these articles to improve our article, save that he played in these football games and scored touchdowns. He's a running back; we'd expect him to do so. Mackensen (talk) 14:04, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's far above routine sports coverage. When the subject's name is in the title, it's clearly not routine. Besides, it's far and away above routine reporting of sports scores. See essay WP:NOTROUTINE for more info.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:48, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That definition of routine doesn't take into the fact that every Division I football game gets recapped at this point. If every game is recapped, with text, then that's by definition routine. Mackensen (talk) 12:29, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Every United States Presidential Election is recapped in print too. By your definition, that's routine. I could argue that every noteworthy event gets routine news coverage. Should we delete everything on Wikipedia? "Too much news coverage" is generally used to say a subject is notable, not that it is not notable. Wikipedia is not about nothing.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:31, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Gaskins has been in the news quite recently for tryouts with the GIants and Titans (where he was briefly on the practice squad). I think it's too soon for deletion. Let's see how things play out. Candleabracadabra (talk) 13:49, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NGRIDIRON and WP:NCOLLATH. Being invited to tryouts with a bunch of others does not show notability--hundreds try out every year for each NFL team.204.126.132.231 (talk) 18:47, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:11, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:03, 17 November 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.

[1] ttp://doublesvsoop.sourceforge.net/giftphp/main.htm

[2] ttp://c.ksu.edu.sa/cpmc

[3] ttp://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL7DDAB72548A4471C

[4] ttp://doublesvsoop.sourceforge.net/pwcthelp/Templates/UsingDataWindow/lesson.htm

[5] ttp://doublesvsoop.sourceforge.net/pwcthelp/Templates/UsingMasterDetails2/lesson.htm

[6] ttp://sourceforge.net/projects/doublesvsoop/files/PWCT%20For%20MS-Windows/PWCT%20Students/

[7] ttp://doublesvsoop.sourceforge.net/gift/c22.jpg

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]