Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 October 22

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 21 October 23 October >

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 Speedy Delete as a test page. — CactusWriter (talk) 01:31, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Doofues Halloween[edit]

The Doofues Halloween (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No source. 🍺 Antiqueight confer 23:53, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete Another "I made this up today" article. Literally zero Google hits aside from this and some forum. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 00:16, 23 October 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 Bentleigh East, Victoria. (non-admin closure) Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:19, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Valkstone Primary School[edit]

Valkstone Primary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is about a non-notable school, and has no sources, reliable or otherwise. Benboy00 (talk) 23:41, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 02:21, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Robert V. R. Bassett[edit]

Robert V. R. Bassett (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not really notable as either a professor or a prisoner-of-war or in his military career. Not a general officer. Article is nearly an orphan. Citations taken from one source only. IMO, this is an excellent example of a person who is just on the other side of notable. Student7 (talk) 23:25, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain - Bassett meets WP:ACADEMIC criteria 5 or 6 at two major academic institutions of higher education. Bassett was appointed chairman of the department of naval science at both Duke University and the University of New Mexico. At the times he held these positions, naval science offered an undergraduate academic minor in the College of Arts and Sciences. Thewellman (talk) 03:14, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Chair of a department is neither an endowed chair (#5) nor president of a whole university (#6). —David Eppstein (talk) 05:14, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm having difficulty finding endowed chair in the notes for criterion 5. Bassett was a full professor at both institutions. Thewellman (talk) 06:04, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's not in the notes, it's in the literal text of the criterion. "The person holds or has held a named chair appointment". That's what named chair means. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:25, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • At the risk of splitting hairs, Bassett was selected, on the basis of unique experience and knowledge, to occupy two professorships funded by the United States Navy Holloway Plan. Those professorships appear to provide the academic institutions with the advantages listed in the definition you suggest. Thewellman (talk) 07:46, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • Comment All ROTC unit commanders, regardless of branch, are listed as professors and department heads. It has nothing to do with their actual academic standing or contributions...it's more about "placing" them in a university's organization. They may be called full professors, but they have no real connection to tenured faculty or other full professors who have come up through the academic ranks. Intothatdarkness 21:45, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • I have encountered many individuals who express opinions implying a military career is somehow fundamentally different than (and usually educationally inferior to) a career in some of the other subjects taught at universities. I have heard similar comments about physical education and the fine arts. I suggest that type of discrimination is inappropriate, and a professor should have equal standing despite the different backgrounds which may have brought them to that level of achievement in the field of study chosen.Thewellman (talk) 00:53, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Thewellman. The subject may fail notability as a military officer, but pass as an academic. Bearian (talk) 18:35, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The two previous comments, despite their keep opinion, already indicate that his military career (which is the entire subject of the article except for a brief mention in the lead) is non-notable. And we have zero evidence of passing WP:PROF. In particular, department chair is an administrative position that would fall under criterion #C6 but not #C5 (which is for positions that recognize academic excellence rather than administration), and the notes to #C6 clearly state "Lesser administrative posts (Provost, Dean, Department Chair, etc.) are generally not sufficient to qualify". Google scholar turns out only one uncited publication "The development of independence in the Philippines, 1934-53" so #C1 is far out of reach. And what other criteria could he possible pass? —David Eppstein (talk) 19:35, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment WP:Academic states "This notability guideline specifies criteria for judging the notability of an academic through reliable sources for the impact of their work". Did their work have any impact? GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:47, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would like to think educators' impact might be measured in the achievements of their students. At least three of the men he instructed in his final year of teaching rose to flag rank. One of them became Assistant Commandant of the Marine Corps. Thewellman (talk) 01:09, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The notability requirement requires proven academic output as in contribution to the field, there's a career path once they left his education to flag position - did his influence help them along it, and are there the sources to say so? GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:26, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I understand a number of commentors doubt Bassett meets criterion 5, but I suggest criterion 5, as presently written, has more ambiguity than is being implied. Academic notability is established by meeting only one of the listed criteria. Why does the list include criterion 5 when the description named chair redirects to an article suggesting a named chair would only be awarded to someone who already met criterion 1? Who is to be notable by criterion 5 who fails to meet criterion 1? The introductory paragraph notes academics may also work outside academia, and I suggest criterion 5 is intended to offer notability to professors from non-traditional background and experience. Thewellman (talk) 06:29, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • You could also suggest that pigs fly, but it wouldn't make it true. Criterion 5 is intended to shortcut deletion debates for professors whose academic accomplishments are held in such high regard by their university employer that they have been honored by an endowed chair, nothing else. It is not for people who chair departments. It is not for people whose position at the university is paid by some other arrangement than endowment. It is not for people who have a chair in their office that they sit in. It is not for people who call their office chair "rosebud". It is not even for people who hold a named chair by virtue of their administrative post rather than by academic accomplishment. (As an example, the dean of my school holds an ex officio named chair — as far as I'm concerned that wouldn't be enough for #C5 although its holder may be notable for other reasons.) And so far you have shown no evidence that Bassett actually had an endowed chair. (Hint: It would have been called the [name of donor] Professorship of [subject].) —David Eppstein (talk) 00:27, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • I understand your position, and it sounds reasonable; but the present wording of criterion 5 is not as limited as your proposed definition. Criterion 5 also supports "Holloway Plan professor of Naval Science" as a named chair. The Holloway Plan terminology was adopted by the navy to conform to the existing named chair nomenclature to emphasize the financial benefits to the Holloway Plan academic institutions. Few endowment programs have the money to support the number of chairs supported by the Holloway Plan. Thewellman (talk) 17:15, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That makes it sound like the Navy bought their way in rather than normal endowments to eg support academic research. Is there a source that shows the Holloway plan officers were academics rather than say administrators. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:12, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to have to demand a citation to support your contention that the Holloway plan money was treated as an endowed chair by the universities that received it. Please note that this typically means (1) putting money into an endowment, using only its interest to pay the professor in question, and keeping the principal permanently on the books of the university, (2) a hiring procedure that is independent of the donor, and (3) (less uniformly, but quite frequently, and what is intended by the WP:PROF criterion) a level of formal review whose criteria are significantly stricter than the criteria for promotion to full professor. You (Thewellman) seem to persist in stretching and straining the terminology to meet whatever you think will let Bassett squeak through. These words have meanings, and you seem not to be paying attention to what those meanings actually are. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:00, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep The nominator also wanted to destructively delete article on Murder of Eve Carson a murdered student body president of a major college. This is clearly a notable US veteran of a notable war who has been noted by many persons. Redhanker (talk) 22:47, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If it is so clear to you, then please explain how this person is a notable US veteran for those of us who don't agree with you. Transcendence (talk) 19:22, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not seem to meet notability as a military officer or an academic. The Holloway Plan was the expansion of Naval Reserve Officer Training Corps to more colleges and universities. The article does not demonstrate that he had any more to do with that then being assigned to command NROTC units. The senior officer assigned to the training unit is by default, the Professor of Naval Science. Thousands of officers have served in a similar capacity and at this time there does not seem to be anything more notable about this person than any of the others. EricSerge (talk) 01:05, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment "Thousands" seems high for the number of individuals who have served as Holloway Plan Professors of Naval Science. Do you have a source for that figure?Thewellman (talk) 15:29, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Response Okay, Hundreds. Looking at the number of NROTC units, multiply that by the number of officers who PCS out every three years and I can most assuredly get to the hundreds if not thousands. I understand that Captain Bassett may have meant a lot to you and made quite an impression when you were an NROTC midshipman, and while his service was most certainly honorable, it does not seem to meet the threshold of notability. That and the more I read about the Holloway Plan, the more it seems to be just an expansion of the scholarship program for NROTC after WW II. Captain Bassett's assignment was just that, an assignment doled out to him, and may others by BUPERS. EricSerge (talk) 02:08, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No evidence this person meets WP:ACADEMIC. Despite what Thewellman claims above, criterion 6 is not met as David Eppstein explains above and the Holloway Plan doesn't seem to be a named chair so criterion 5 isn't met either. The military achievements don't rise to the level recommended by WP:MILNG either. Transcendence (talk) 19:20, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per EricSerge above. All ROTC commanders are designated department heads by the universities they're posted to. It's a formality that really has nothing to do with academic achievement or excellence. Intothatdarkness 21:41, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Although Bassett may never have been required to defend a dissertation, He defended his ship with the men under his command through a series of battles at sea. Since academic institutions are unable to offer that learning experience during each spring semester, they delegate nomination of Holloway Plan Professor of Naval Science to the Bureau of Naval Personnel. The academic institutions reject applicants they consider unqualified to occupy the chair.Thewellman (talk) 15:29, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete he did not "defend the ship with the men under his command." As I read it, he was a junior officer abroad the Pope. The citation was for the unit. Though through no fault of his own, he seems never to have commanded any ship in wartime. The relevant policy is NOT MEMORIAL. DGG ( talk ) 04:03, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was WP:SNOW delete as unverifiable hoax / something someone made up / nonsense. Fram (talk) 13:38, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Six Month Rule[edit]

The Six Month Rule (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:MADEUP.

Resubmission of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Six Month Rule in main namespace. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 23:18, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is urban dictionary material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregg1234 (talk • contribs) 02:47, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - made up in class one day - borderline speedy. The Whispering Wind (talk) 02:58, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. There is some mention of a film by this name, but not any actual dating "rule" by this name. There is a mention in an article about someone's own 6 month rule, but it has absolutely nothing to do with what is laid out on this page. Ultimately this is a complete and utter hoax that at best is something someone came up with one day. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:21, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - unverifiable. WilyD 09:05, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per Gregg essentially.--SKATER Speak. 09:35, 23 October 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. --BDD (talk) 18:38, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ellen DeGeneres 2009 Tulane University Commencement Address[edit]

Ellen DeGeneres 2009 Tulane University Commencement Address (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable event. Article was proded but creator took it down. ...William 22:59, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, also WP:NOTESSAY. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 23:25, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is some weird stuff. I've never seen an article where the ref tags have been added in manually, with no actual references. Maybe this has been copied (badly) from somewhere? Nevertheless, clearly a non-notable event. Maybe if some sources are found it could be merged. Benboy00 (talk) 23:37, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete such events are almost never notable, except for a few actually famous ones, though they all get routine press coverage.,. DGG ( talk ) 04:41, 29 October 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. --BDD (talk) 18:38, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Morro[edit]

Morro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The Oxford English Dictionary defines (subscription required) "morro" as simply being the name for a hill or mountain in Spanish- and Portuguese-speaking areas of the United States, and which in some places is used as a proper name for hills or mountains. The contention that a "morro" is in "the shallow waters of a harbor" seems to be completely unsupported beyond one of the meanings of the Spanish word morro being "headland". Google Books searches also produce no references for the claims of "morro"s being commonly made from granite or quartz. The gallery of "Examples" is simply pictures of places with "Morro" in their name (or not at all, in the case of Sugarloaf Mountain, which also happens to be near a place with "Morro" in the name, Morro da Urca, which simply translates as Urca Mountain).

Basically, this whole article seems to be a mess of misunderstandings and synthesis describing something that doesn't actually exist. If that were not the case, I would suggest that the article be redirected to something like granite dome, but that would be extending the life of a falsehood. Perhaps it should just go to mountain. — Scott • talk 22:37, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The nom's rationale pretty much says all that needs to be said. Deor (talk) 12:49, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without redirection (and tidy anything linking here). Whether the misunderstanding was from some not-quite-reliable source or from editors here, this ... isn't a term in the literature. It simply does not mean what this article, or uses elsewhere in the project, say that it means (which is maybe granite dome, maybe volcanic plug, or maybe just some big hunk of rock). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:14, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 23:48, 23 October 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 Stella Vine. I'm not going to request protection since the article has only been created one, it can be requested to enforce the outcome of this AfD if required. (non-admin closure) Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:21, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Charitable work by Stella Vine[edit]

Charitable work by Stella Vine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unjustified promotional content fork from Stella Vine. The news sources that are still accessible mention Vine's charitable donations only briefly. Vine is evidently a notable artist but a balanced and commensurate mention of her major donations can be easily slipped into the main article. Sionk (talk) 21:52, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge back to main article. There's no need for this to be a separate article. It's odd and perhaps a little bit suspicious that Vine has a longer article than many more distinguished/famous/influential artists (e.g. Sarah Lucas, Sam Taylor-Wood, Wolfgang Tillmans, David Shrigley) and while we don't correct that by shortening Vine's article, there's equally no reason to create a thicket of Sarah Vine pages around Wikipedia. --Colapeninsula (talk) 22:27, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
...It's not as if there is much scope for this article to be expanded significantly. --Colapeninsula (talk) 23:25, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and salt - this is just PR by fans. To be honest, I've never heard of the subject. Bearian (talk) 18:38, 24 October 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 The Generators. Cerebellum (talk) 13:14, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Doosky[edit]

Sir Doosky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Musician's unsourced autobiography. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 21:11, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:44, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:44, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Tried to find sources but failed, fails WP:BAND--SKATER Speak. 09:39, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to his notable band, The Generators. Lacks independent notability. duffbeerforme (talk) 05:01, 24 October 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. --BDD (talk) 18:42, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bollywood-Arts[edit]

Bollywood-Arts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet the the requirements as per wp:corp, notability has still yet to be established . As well as possible conflict with username for promotion as well . Staffwaterboy Critique Me 21:02, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as non-notable: all I could find on this organisation was self-published. I would say that I'm not sure that the creator has a coi problem: in my experience most editors creating a promotional website have a deal more expertise in how to make a wiki page than this editor.TheLongTone (talk) 21:08, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:42, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:42, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:42, 22 October 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. A few hours early but it's unanimous anyways. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 13:48, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interactivography[edit]

Interactivography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The word only shows up in google on the wordpress link written by the man who coined the word and which seems to be more suggesting it is a company name "About InterActivoGraphy & its products – the games" 🍺 Antiqueight confer 20:38, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Doesn't appear to be a company, but does appear to be a non-notable neologism, made up by a guy writing a blog last week to describe his own personal take on the art of video game creation. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:42, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 21:39, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:39, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:39, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NEO. (And isn't this just "interactivity" as applied to video games?) --MASEM (t) 21:40, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, interactivography, cinematography - is normal scientific terms. Interactivography is just a term who indentifies namely the area & art of digital electronic games. FioFeogenod (talk) 22:11, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete Doesn't seem to hold any standing with notability, I would also reference made up as well. Staffwaterboy Critique Me 22:57, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Poorly sourced neologism, an obvious example of WP:MADEUP. hmssolent\You rang? ship's log 02:01, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Has anyone considered nominating this for speedy deletion as advertisement, with no claim of importance being made? Drmies (talk) 17:03, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment It doesn't appear to be advertisement in that this isn't a product or service that is being offered for sale, it is just one guy's concept of a new way to think about video games. One might consider it advertisement in that it might be seen as an attempt to drive traffic to his WordPress site, but I think that would be stretching the point somewhat. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 18:16, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's precisely what I had in mind--and I don't think that's stretching the definition at all. One doesn't need to sell a product or a service: one can promote oneself. That's advertisement. Drmies (talk) 19:33, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • You're free to tag it as such if you feel that is appropriate (or delete it outright; you are and admin, right?). I wouldn't argue with it, as I'm certain that whatever the reason, this article has no place on Wikipedia. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:00, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am leaning to delete, but could go along with a merger, perhaps to Computer art? Bearian (talk) 18:51, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete per WP:CSD#G4 based on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GatherSpace SmartSE (talk) 18:02, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GatherSpace (company)[edit]

GatherSpace (company) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Yet another cloud-based online requirements management company: i.e. an online business providing "management" of an indefinite, abstract noun. The current text does not contain a minimal assertion of encyclopedic significance, and sources are all tech trade publications. Re-created after being speedily deleted multiple times. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:53, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:35, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:35, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:35, 22 October 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. --BDD (talk) 18:42, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Quest for Juice[edit]

The Quest for Juice (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to meet WP:NBOOK; while I can find a few reviews, they are on personal blogs and user-edited sites, not the sort of thing that usually denotes notability. A self-published book of recent vintage, this does not appear to have yet generated the necessary attention. Nat Gertler (talk) 19:46, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Looks like a self-published book that has no professional reviews. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:51, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:34, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:34, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no professional reviews, or independent public sources for reference. --Nlfestival (talk) 02:13, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is ultimately a non-notable independent book. It hasn't received reviews or coverage in any places that would be considered to be reliable. The article has some blog sources, but neither are the type that we'd consider to be RS. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:36, 23 October 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 - article substantially improved and nomination withdrawn during AfD process. WJBscribe (talk) 19:10, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of film clichés[edit]

List of film clichés (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While an article on film cliches may be worthwhile, having a list of them does not really make sense. What qualifies as a "cliche" and what doesn't? Fails WP:LISTN. Beerest355 Talk 19:31, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:33, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:33, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is an unverifiable mess of original research. I can certainly see potential here, but it would have to be rewritten to discuss common tropes and plot devices used in film. An arbitrary list, however, is not encyclopedic. This is more suitable to TV Tropes. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:23, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm satisfied with the improvements made to the article, though I still don't see the different between WP:TNT and rewriting the article from scratch. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:21, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Most of the entries are unsourced OR (romantic triangle?). I could see a list being compiled, but there's not much worth saving from this one. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:44, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your comment indicates that, in your view, there is something worth saving here. Why then should we delete this, throwing out the baby with the bathwater? Warden (talk) 19:05, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You know what's not a cliché? Actual reliable sources. Even after the makeover, it's still a steaming pile of dubiosity. Blow it up and start over. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:43, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration.
  • Keep. Passes WP:LISTN easily being the subject of sources such as Ebert's Bigger Little Movie Glossary: A Greatly Expanded and Much Improved Compendium of Movie Cliches, Stereotypes, Obligatory Scenes, Hackneyed Formulas, Shopworn Conventions, and Outdated Archetypes. Individual cliches such as the happy ending are the subject of extensive academic analysis such as Happy Endings in Hollywood Cinema: Cliché, Convention, and the Final Couple and, as we have articles about these such as car chase and pie fight, it makes sense to have a list of them as an index. The current draft isn't very good but it is quite new and so just requires support and and encouragement per our editing policy. The nominator has done nothing to help, though, and so should please see WP:BEFORE and WP:NOTCLEANUP. Warden (talk) 19:03, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with you that it passes LISTN, but that might be an instance of why that's really not a great guideline, as there are plenty of things that are covered enough as a group to be notable yet not proper to list out. I think the best argument the delete !voters are making above boils down to WP:TNT: there is a lot of crap in this article, that mistakes as clichés what are standard (or even integral) genre elements (such as shootouts in westerns, or sports films "loosely based off a real-life athlete or team"; might as well say it's a cliché for a sports film to feature sports), or that are just inexplicable in their inclusion (a "plural noun" film title is a cliché? wtf??), and only two entries have any kind of proper citation (i.e., a secondary source expressly identifying it as a cliche). So I honestly think nothing would be lost to blow it up and start over in this instance. I'm typically reluctant to say that. postdlf (talk) 20:03, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • What we might lose, apart from the basic idea and the current content, is the goodwill of the editor who got this page started. Our guideline WP:DONTBITE states emphatically, "nothing scares potentially valuable contributors away faster than hostility." Bringing out explosives in order to make a bold restructuring of the article would be quite pointy too. I flagged the article for rescue and am quite capable of rewriting the entire thing myself, if I have to. Deletion is therefore quite unnecessary and unhelpful and would be contrary to multiple policies and guidelines. WP:TNT, on the other hand, is just an essay and so has no standing here. Warden (talk) 23:24, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree with both NinjaRobotPirate, Warden and postdlf, in the way that the list has much potential, yet in order for the potential to be fully realized, the article must be kept in order for it grow. Like what was said previously, many of these are elements specific to a genre, and so perhaps this article could be recreated as just a standard list of clichés or list of clichés in media. As for whether or not certain clichés are notable enough to be included, I think that it should be handled like this: a user adds a cliché to the list, and others working on the page should discuss if it should stay. Or maybe we could ask editors to take a suggestion onto the talk page before officially placing it in the article. I also think that each cliché should be referenced. But that's just my two cents, and because I created it and want it to grow, and perhaps be a featured article someday, I opt to keep it. --Matthew (talk) 21:14, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • List inclusion would have to be based on reliable sources to avoid being original research. If we completely rewrite the article and change the scope, then I could see keeping the article. That's basically the same thing as WP:TNT, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:39, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have tried a single pass rewrite to boil the list down to its essentials and provide a cleaner structure for further development. Sourcing and further additions will help but the current examples such as car chase seem sufficiently obvious as to need little elaboration. Warden (talk) 23:50, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, educational and encyclopedic topic, great room for quality improvement here, — Cirt (talk) 04:24, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, im not denying there are such things as notable cliches. If we want to rename the article "list of wikipedia articles about movie cliches" then that could be viable since every article would be subject to WP:N and WP:OR. But for example the "Car trouble" cliche is linking to Automobile right now.Gaijin42 (talk) 16:23, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I searched for newspapers covering film cliches and found ample results. I added some into the article. I'll keep working on it. Dream Focus 16:29, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve as a list of demonstrably notable topics (bluelinks as itemized by Dream Focus, plus only other clichés demonstrably amenable to being developed into similar articles or sections of articles). --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:07, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete Can't be exhaustive; a threshold of what belongs and what doesn't can't be established objectively (and no, in my opinion, some schmo writing a book doesn't count). If a film cliche is notable, put it in its own article or write a Wiktionary entry pbp 01:15, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Purplebackpack89: - sorry but "some schmo writing in a book" is instead exactly all that counts, given WP:V, WP:TRUTH and WP:RS. I also remind readers of this AfD that Pbp's quest to change policy to get a few of current AfDs his own way is currently failing spectacularly (not that there's anything wrong with this, I also proposed stuff that failed - just showing that the "objectivity" argument above has no consensus so far). --cyclopiaspeak! 09:24, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Cyclopia:, please stop canvassing the VPP proposal, and stop following me around in general. You know I'm not going to change my mind. pbp 15:11, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Purplebackpack89: - That is not canvassing at all, I'm not asking people to vote on it one way or the other (and also, don't you want more eyes on it, given how it is going?). Also, nobody is following you, frankly. If you don't change your mind even after policy has been pointed to you, fine, but this is not something I'd be proud, if I were in you. --cyclopiaspeak! 15:17, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Cyclopia:: I interpret policy differently than you do, and if you were trying to get everybody (which isn't happening; it appears only people who vote keep in these AfDs find there way to the VPP), you'd have worded the linking in a more neutral manner. As it stands, it is a derogatory remark, quite like many other comments you have made to me, Pen of Doom, and others who rightfully want to rid this Wikipedia of cruft pbp 15:23, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Purplebackpack89: You read my mind wrong again. I am actually not trying to get anybody to vote on your proposal. I was just pointing that your attempt to change policy mid-AfD to make it consistent with your opinion is not getting any consensus at all. That is hardly derogatory, so much that I even added explicitly that there is nothing wrong with the fact you have a non-consensual opinion (heck, I have lots of opinions on WP that get little consensus). However I suppose it is of interest, for the admin closer, that your general opinion on list selection criteria represents a non-consensual one, and also to point that attempts at changing policy during the AfD happened (which is quite bad form). No more, no less. The "canvassing" idea is all yours. --cyclopiaspeak! 15:32, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and archetypes in Japanese cinema. Perhaps we should start sublists on the different genres? --cyclopiaspeak! 09:26, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep, and I'll echo Warden's concerns about the nomination. Joefromrandb (talk) 13:57, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Galea Yunshui 雲‍水 12:43, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Scrapbook EP (John Galea EP)[edit]

The Scrapbook EP (John Galea EP) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet WP:NALBUM. I tried making this a redirect to singer's article, but this was reversed. Boleyn (talk) 19:25, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:30, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:31, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can not find significant coverage for this EP; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSIC at this time.  Gong show 20:16, 25 October 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) Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:41, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nokia Lumia 1320[edit]

Nokia Lumia 1320 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lack of detail and no references at all 🍺 Antiqueight confer 19:03, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Lumia series. © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 20:24, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think this should be kept but a notice should be added to the page saying it needs more detail. A picture of the product could be added, as well as details, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikejones1477 (talk • contribs) 20:27, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and tag as a stub. The device has just been announced, details and refs will probably be coming shortly. Indrek (talk) 21:05, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:29, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:29, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It is just announced today, so it should get populated soon. -Abhishikt (talk) 00:21, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep no good reason to delete. Should not have been nominated. --Danrok (talk) 13:30, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentWhy is this a good page to keep - it might be a good page later when there is detail to add but putting up a page when there were no details, no references etc? Shouldn't it at the very least be moved to a draft page?-- 🍺 Antiqueight confer 17:37, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's explained on this page: Reasons for deletion. As far as sources go, the article should only be up for deletion if it cannot be correctly sourced at all. In this case, a quick internet search would reveal that there are enough possible sources for this phone (currently 1430 news results on Google). --Danrok (talk) 00:48, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We've been making pages for each phone on the Lumia line. No need to delete. --Lprd2007 (talk) 04:20, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep future major device. -- Nezdek (talk) 18:07, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep (WP:NAC) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:05, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Miracle at Moreaux[edit]

Miracle at Moreaux (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non notable made for tv film. WP:NOT IMDB. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:51, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep very intense and emotional film, the article needs to be written in a better way and more references attached to the story and notable people, Gaijin42 is right the way the article is, if it can not be improved then should be deleted. --Nlfestival (talk) 19:31, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"intense and emotional" have nothing to do with Wikipedia:NOTFILM Gaijin42 (talk) 19:55, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Not going to set any breadth-of-sourcing records, but there's better than nothing out there: eFilmCritic review [2], LA Times Review [3], Orlando Sentinel announcement [4] (paywalled, link to abstract), and a review from Stephen F. Austin State University's Clio's Eye [5] (about which we can have a lively discussion regarding source reliability, I am certain). Regardless, that's probably enough to squeak past the inclusion threshold. If for some reason it's not, then my distant second choice would be to merge to Claire Huchet Bishop (since the adapted book does not have its own article). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:38, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:28, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:28, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:28, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:28, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Has anyone done a newspaper search? Most coverage is likely to come from 1980s US or Canadian newspapers. I'm not totally sure if this is notable, but if not, merge to Claire Huchet Bishop who is notable despite her short article (or create an article on the book). Sadly it's a lot easier to propose deletion than merging on Wikipedia. --Colapeninsula (talk) 22:35, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's not as well known as some of the other films out there, but there was some coverage that was still visible today. I can also see where it's on several teachers' lists of stuff to show in the classroom. ([6], [7], [8]) There's just enough to where it can just manage to squeak by notability guidelines, I think. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)
  • Keep seems sufficiently notable for inclusion as a separate article.--Milowent • hasspoken 19:35, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep (WP:NAC) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:02, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ChicagoPride.com[edit]

ChicagoPride.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Cannot find significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. Reads more like corporate PR than a neutral, informative article about a notable topic. Drm310 (talk) 18:31, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:24, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:24, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:24, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, good coverage in books, above, — Cirt (talk) 04:24, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Cirt, WP:WEB, and Gene. Really, it's odd, because it's quite promotional, yet it leaves out a lot that touts the website. Bearian (talk) 18:51, 24 October 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. I find User:Cyclopia's reasoning to be persuasive in this case. Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:01, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bdelygmia[edit]

Bdelygmia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. Article creator fails to address the primary reason for nomination, which was WP:NOTDICT. Article claims that this is a widely used term in rhetoric: however if this was so the word would be in the OED. Its not. (There is also probably a rhetorical term for using unecessarily long or obscure word when a simple one would do : in this case, "insult".TheLongTone (talk) 17:18, 22 October 2013 (UTC) TheLongTone (talk) 17:18, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rebuttal

Wikipedia is known to be an encyclopedia, which defined by Wikipedia, provides information from all branches of knowledge, rhetoric being on of them. If encyclopedias have been around since medieval times, it seems relevant that an ancient Greek rhetorical device be properly defined on Wikipedia. Just because a word is longer and more obscure does not make it irrelevant. Simply ignoring the term would be ignoring a part of ancient Greek rhetoric. It might be helpful to look at the glossary of rhetorical terms because there are many words on that list that I am sure people have never heard of, but there are still pages about them. Why not provide information about a term like bdelygmia that does not have an existing page? Why should this specific page be deleted but not any of the others on the glossary list? From that long extensive list, it seems like rhetoric is, in fact, a significant topic and its importance can be validated by the vast amount of terms provided by Wikipedia. Jeb253 (talk) 18:15, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please read the nomination. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. Arguing that there are pages defining other rhetorical terms is an argument for deleting them rather than keeping this article. Additionally the existence of glossary of rhetorical terms is an argument for deleting individual definitions, or rather changing them into redirects to the list.TheLongTone (talk) 18:44, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not arguing to delete anything, I'm proving that because there are other existing pages containing similar ancient Greek rhetorical devices, there should also be a page for this word. I referred to the glossary because it provides extensive proof that rhetoric is relevant to some people. Just because you or someone else has never heard of a word, doesn't mean it is not important. I can almost assert than many people do not know every single Wikipedia entry. That is why Wikipedia is here anyway - to provide people with knowledgeable and even sometimes, new information. What is regarded as important to one person does not hold true for everyone. Jeb253 (talk) 21:04, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For somebody studying rhetoric you have a remarkably poor ability to see the point. I think the article should be deleted because WP is not a dictionary. The argument that an article should be kept because similar articles exist is not valid: in wiki jargon, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Which I was using to counter your argument that because similar articles exist this one should be kept. That I think this word is ludicrous is neither here nor there, btwTheLongTone (talk) 21:22, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:23, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]


I may have misunderstood you, but I am aware that Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The page I created has more to it than just a simple dictionary entry. I provided credible sources and applied the term with real life examples. I took it a step further by using the word to relate it things people would understand. I understand that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, which is why I clearly and extensively used the word in terms of real life applications. Jeb253 (talk) 21:28, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well of course there is supposed to be a definition of the word in the beginning. I did not just provide examples I used credible and legitimate sources (rhetorical scholars in fact) who explain the use of the word. In addition, these credible sources to explain the history of how violence was used and came about in ancient rhetoric. How is that just giving examples? Jeb253 (talk) 19:14, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep WP:NOTDICT does not mean that articles about words are forbidden, it means that articles shouldn't be mere dictionary definitions. This isn't the case. The article is clearly also about a concept in the field of rhetoric, one that is pretty notable by the way (e.g. [9]). The article needs a lot of cleanup, but that is not the job of AfDs. --cyclopiaspeak! 22:10, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Yes, thank you. There is not merely a definition in the article, but other information that adds depth and meaning to this notable (see above) rhetorical term. Jeb253 (talk) 23:15, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Article is far more than a dicdef. Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:56, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep (WP:NAC) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:11, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Antiptosis[edit]

Antiptosis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTDICDEF This seems like just a definition of a word. Benboy00 (talk) 16:57, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:19, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a documented rhetorical device. Although the article in its present form does not go very far beyond a definition and some examples, the article has potential for expansion, possibly noting (with documentation) the rhetorical effects that can be obtained through its use, and summaries any analyses of the device that have been published. I generally only favor WP:DICTDEF deletions for articles that could not reasonably be expanded beyond the definition. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 21:46, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If we're speaking to whether this can be expanded beyond a dictionary def, Glossary of rhetorical terms links to a vast range of articles on rhetorical devices that show how articles can be developed with examples, discussion of the rhetorical usage and the effect produced, comparison with other rhetorical devices, who first identified and wrote about it, etc, to add to the comparison of how it works in different languages which is already there - all beyond dictionary definition. Notability is a bit more questionable, since Google Books indicates more 19th century sources than 21st, but at worst it should be merged. --Colapeninsula (talk) 22:37, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not a mere dictionary definition, looks like a bit obscure but still notable concept in the field of rhetoric. --cyclopiaspeak! 22:11, 23 October 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) Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:43, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Beatrice Kozera[edit]

Beatrice Kozera (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

i'm not seeing what made this person notable other then being inspiration for a character. it doesnt look like their is enough information or sources for this article to stand alone if anything it should be re-directed Redsky89 (talk) 16:52, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:17, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:17, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, because she's not just the "inspiration for a character". Her relationship with the author was the subject of an iconic work of fiction and another more recent book is based on her life. The Daily Mail described her as the "woman whose fleeting relationship with novelist Jack Kerouac was chronicled in On the Road - the book that defined a generation". The author of the second book, "told her that there were over 20 Kerouac biographies that had included her name". The LA Times, The Independent, the Daily Mail and The Australian (and others) thought she was notable enough to carry detailed obituaries. In 2012 they made a film adaptation of the book in which she (the lead role carried on the movie's posters) was played by Alice Braga. I'm struggling to see how someone could be the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, be the muse for one book and the subject of another (almost a biography from most accounts) and the focus of a film and not be notable. The 2013 book (based on multiple in-depth interviews with the subject along with additional detailed research) would probably be enough. Stalwart111 23:53, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment perhaps nominator needs to reread GNG. sources are there. "i never heard of it" ≠ "not notable". Duckduckgo (talk) 17:58, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Topic has been the subject of multiple reliable sources including On the Road (book), Manana Means Heaven (film), Daily Mail (obit), LA Times (obit), Associated Press (obit), others mentioned by Gene93k including academic book mentions due to On the Road. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 19:51, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I've now cleaned up the article a bit to make the references clearer and will work on adding more references (though many are mentioned in the article itself, even without footnoting). Stalwart111 04:33, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Coverage in several WP:RS. A second book, based on research, and a movie, suggests that this person is getting coverage from other people besides Kerouac, and in a broad geographical area. Although it's quite possible that major US literary authors had more romances with Mexican farmworker gals back in the day than we realize, most of them didn't write about it, possibly due to (WP:BIAS). Hence this article contributes to the gender and ethnic diversity of our encyclopedia. Djembayz (talk) 23:54, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - though there was only the LA Times obit in the article when nominated for AfD, a very cursory internet search will see her death was widely and extensively reported in all of the major newspapers on both sides of the 'Pond'. Non-notable people simply don't have that impact! Sionk (talk) 01:38, 29 October 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. The users !voting keep did not provide reliable sources to demonstrate independent notability. Cerebellum (talk) 13:33, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Raft (comics)[edit]

The Raft (comics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(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) 16:07, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:15, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:15, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Features of the Marvel Universe. Not independently notable. The article does not have independent, secondary sources, and I can not locate any. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:38, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per above, or into List of correctional facilities in comics, where this subject is also mentioned.  Gong show 00:24, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Features of the Marvel Universe, insufficient real-world notability but worthy of mention in the grouping. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:30, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Features of the Marvel Universe as a minimal point, possibly creating a "Prisons" section under "Other locations". It's already on List of correctional facilities in comics - and that "list" needs a serious clean-up. The plot/in-story info dump making up this article really has little to justify a separate article. - J Greb (talk) 01:28, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, unless more secondary sources can be found. A topis is only "notable" if it appears in coverage by secondary sources. Nightscream (talk) 05:08, 25 October 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. Users !voting keep did not provide sources to demonstrate independent notability. Cerebellum (talk) 13:49, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Negative Zone Prison Alpha[edit]

Negative Zone Prison Alpha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(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) 16:06, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:14, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:14, 22 October 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. G11'd. "If subscribing to the magazine you get a number of bonus free gifts (etc.)" - no. This might be notable but WP:TNT. The Bushranger One ping only 07:25, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Who DVD Files[edit]

Doctor Who DVD Files (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is an advert. Despite the fact that there are inadequate reliable sources for it, even if there were, this is not notable for an article of its own. As a maximum it would deserve just a mention on List of Doctor Who DVD and Blu-ray releases. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 15:52, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
and Gareth Griffith-Jones| The Welsh Buzzard: Cardiff born and bred | — 15:59, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:10, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:10, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:10, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we could find some sources for it and rewrite the sections to make it sound less of an advert? Tommatkencaz (talk) 06:55, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete G11 What a horrendous article, I'm surprised nobody has already deleted this as spam, it even includes the price per issue! Highly inappropriate content (insanely long list of issues, subscription bonuses, non-encyclopedic language -addressing the reader directly as "you"). Complete absence of independent sources, no salvageable content. --Randykitty (talk) 12:46, 23 October 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. No policy-based rationaile is given by the nominator, and in fact there was not, is not, and never has been a link to a Facebook page on this page, indicating SK2E applies as well. The Bushranger One ping only 07:24, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mexico Public Schools[edit]

Mexico Public Schools (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is not a page that Mexico Public Schools wants on Wiki because it is linked to a Facebook Page that is not accurate. We are starting a Facebook page and would like to not have two different facebook pages. Dhunt007 (talk) 15:23, 22 October 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 October 22. —cyberbot I NotifyOnline 15:41, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm not really sure what the nominator is requesting here. There is no link to any Facebook page from the article (nor is Facebook considered a reliable source for Wikipedia's purposes). Currently, the only external link (or reference) in the article is to the official website of the school district. Obviously, more references from reliable sources would be preferable here, but there's virtually no chance that discussion here would result in the article for a public school district being deleted (as with high schools, and perhaps more so, they're largely viewed to have presumptive notability). In any case, no policy-based deletion rationale has been offered here. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:58, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep This is not a valid reason for deletion. If you have problems with Facebook, contact them. Wikipedia has no control over Facebook's community pages, and even if the page is deleted from Wikipedia that is no guarantee it will be deleted from Facebook. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:01, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep and comment: Facebook automatically creates a page where one does not yet exist, and uses Wikipedia as a (credited) source for the page text. The nominator needs to select the link to notify Facebook of a duplicate page. This link can be found on the Mexico Public Schools Facebook page under "report page". Facebook tends to be prompt in correcting these when they know about them. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 16:33, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:42, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:42, 22 October 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. As a closing note, please remember that our notability guidelines supersede essays like this. Numerous reliable sources have treated the event as if it were significant, and so will we. m.o.p 12:08, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2013 Harbin smog[edit]

2013 Harbin smog (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

How is this encyclopaedic in the least bit? Just because there are news sources doesnt mean its for an encycloapedic. It will be an orphan when off ITN. Smacks of RECENTISM, NOTNEWS Lihaas (talk) 14:54, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All highways in the province were closed and there was major disruption to a city of 11 million people. Air pollution in the country is an embarrassment for the Politburo; one source provided in the article calls it "a constant source of public anger." There has been a tacit consensus to keep the following articles about air pollution events:

  • It might be better to merge this into a larger article on the "airpocalypse" [10] [11]. Ryan Vesey 06:07, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep plenty of sources are available to write a proper article. I think this should be snow closed as keep. Jehochman Talk 18:23, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as there are clearly several sources demonstrating its international notability. You may want to review Wikipedia:Notability (events), particularly the "inclusion criteria" section, as you have AFDd on similar grounds before. Teemu08 (talk) 18:57, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:50, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:50, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:50, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. 1997 Southeast Asian haze, 2005 Malaysian haze, and 2010 eruptions of Eyjafjallajökull were much larger geographic areas, so comparing those events to this is not accurate. The Great Smog affected a much larger city, and Visibility was reduced to a few yards, compared to the 50m reduction in Harbin, shows that the "Great Smog" was far worse. "1930 Meuse Valley fog" killed 60, "1948 Donora smog" killed 20, and honestly may qualify for an AFD as well. The Harbin Smog killed zero. The article also says that this is an annual occurrence in Harbin due to coal heating. The links provided above only serve to demonstrate what this event is not, which is notable compared to the others. Suggest snow close per WP:NOTNEWS. --76.110.201.132 (talk) 21:01, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW close only comes into play when the issue/opinion has no chance of success, which is not the case here as there are those who support keeping it. 331dot (talk) 12:03, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The BBC quotes Xinhua as saying that "A red alert for thick smog had been issued in the provinces of Heilongjiang, Jilin and Liaoning [...]" [12]. According to Wikipedia, Heilongjiang has an area of 454,800 km2 whereas Malaysia has an area of 329,847 km2. The satellite photo at [13] shows the pollution covering a large geographical area. By "much larger city" do you mean the area or the population? Metropolitan London today has a population of roughly 15 million, but it may have been fewer in 1952. The total population of Heilongjiang, Jilin and Liaoning is probably more than 100 million, whereas that of Malaysia was around 28 million at the last census. While I haven't read any reports of sickness or death from the current pollution in China, it seems rather too soon to declare that "the Harbin Smog killed zero." —rybec 23:46, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note that this person is the nominator MarioNovi (talk) 04:49, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, I wasn't the nominator. That is Lihaas. I found another story saying that "almost all monitoring stations in Heilongjiang, Jilin and Liaoning provinces reported readings above 200 for PM2.5" on 23 October.[14] —rybec 05:34, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry I made a mistake. MarioNovi (talk) 06:12, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
keep Alot of sources, I agree with all keeps above. Thank you, MarioNovi (talk) 04:49, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Record air pollution affecting 100 million people seems like a no-brainer to keep. As stated above, we have other articles about past air pollution events. 331dot (talk) 11:59, 23 October 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 Gilligan's Island characters. WP:NOTBURO. The Bushranger One ping only 07:19, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wrongway Feldman[edit]

Wrongway Feldman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable fictional character who appeared in two episodes of the series. There are no reliable sources that discuss the character from the real-world perspective demanded of articles about fictional subjects. References note that the character existed and who played him but offer little to nothing else beyond that. Fails WP:GNG, fails WP:PLOT. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 14:38, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:51, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:51, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:51, 22 October 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. --BDD (talk) 18:46, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hobbs End[edit]

Hobbs End (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable fictional concept. Article collects a series of incidents in which some variation of "Hobbs End" or "Hobbs Lane" or the like was used in a work of fiction, along with a couple of examples that in the unreferenced opinion of one editor or another sound like they could refer to "Hobbs End" or "Hobbs Lane" and via synthesis declares them an article. There are no reliable sources that discuss the topic of "Hobbs End" in the context of the real world that are required for an article on an aspect or element of fiction. PROD contested on the basis of this supposed source but the source actually proves the point that this fictional subject, when mentioned at all, is mentioned in the most passing and trivial of ways. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 14:31, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as an unsourced original essay. It's not bad, mind you, just not appropriate for WP. Carrite (talk) 16:11, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:07, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep How is this "unsourced" [15]? "Hobb" is a long-established name for the devil, Hobbs End or Hobbs Lane placenames with such implications and multiple horror writers have picked up on this as a literary trope. This is widely cited for their occurrences and Muir's book shows considered literary criticism of this use. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:12, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Muir mentions this in one paragraph out of a 700 page book and the paragraph is about the filmFallen, not about any of the various fictional places called Hobbs End. There need to be sources that discuss in substantive detail the concept of "Hobbs End" itself, not just mentions of it in sources that are entirely about other things. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 21:19, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This seems to consist of a bit of information about the television and film versions of Quatermass and the Pit, in both of which articles the scripts' connection between "Hob" and the devil receives sufficient mention, to which has been added a collection of other instances in which "Hob(b)(')s" occurs in place names—almost all of which seem to be either completely unrelated or clearly alluding to the Quatermass usage. As for the Muir book, it's a single source making the claim that "horror programming ... [has] used the name 'Hobbs' to ... denote a source of evil" in the course of "explaining" the use of the name "Hobbes" for a character who's not evil. Not very persuasive, to say the least. (I wonder what Muir's exegesis of the name of Roy Hobbs in The Natural or of Miranda Hobbes on Sex and the City might look like.) In short, except for the Quatermass usages, which are covered elsewhere, the article seems to constitute inadmissible original research. Deor (talk) 13:41, 23 October 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--Ymblanter (talk) 17:02, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Enzymatic strategies[edit]

Enzymatic strategies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The more thorough enzyme catalysis already exists. Prof. Squirrel (talk) 14:01, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:03, 22 October 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. --BDD (talk) 18:53, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Atlee Kumar[edit]

Atlee Kumar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

(PROD contested by IP editor, with no reason given.) I have been unable to find evidence of satisfying the notability guidelines. One of the references in the article mentions him a few times briefly, the other is a single news report on a site that essential publishes press releases and similar. Searching, I have found lots of web pages mentioning him, but almost everything I have looked at suffers from one or more of the following limitations: unreliable sources (e.g. Facebook, YouTube); sources that are clearly not independent of the subject (e.g. a video of him talking about his own work), or that seem to exist mainly for promotion (including sites that exist to promote people in the Indian film industry, sites that exist to promote the achievement of ethnically Tamil people, etc); pages that only briefly mention him, including some mere listing pages, a two sentence announcement of a film release date, etc. I did find one or two things that might be considered a little better, such as an interview at www.tamiltvshows.net, but even that site describes itself as "merely an video indexing website" (including the word "merely"), and I am uncertain how much weight should be given to its coverage. In any case, even if we give that site the benefit of the doubt, I did not manage to find the sort of substantial independent coverage in multiple independent sources that is needed. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:19, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Note: The article was created by a banned user, using one of many sockpuppets. I have now seen evidence which strongly suggests that the IP editor who removed the PROD is likely to be that banned editor. That being so, I could simply revert the PROD removal, as any edit by a banned user may be reverted. However, we may as well let this AfD run, so as to see if any other editors have anything to contribute. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:51, 22 October 2013 (UTC))[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:21, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:21, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:21, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Gonna opt for DELETE per author's suspected history and per TOO SOON. While the subject can indeed be found written of in a number of sources, these sources seem mostly in relationship to this one film Raji Rani. While the film is arguably notable, under WP:FILMMAKER the debutante director is not quite... yet. To to meet WP:FILMMAKER we really prefer more than just the one notable project. Allow undeletion or recreation when this man's career grows. For now, we can redirect to the film title. I agree with JamesBWatson's analysis of the issues but wish to clarify that while the puppet and master are indeed indef-blocked, a block it is not exactly the same as as a WP:BAN. Schmidt, Michael Q. 18:16, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was basing what I said on the fact that two of the blocks on the sockmaster are logged with reasons that include the word "banned", as can be seen in the block log here. I have not checked why the two administrators who said that the user was banned thought so, and whether they were right or not. If they weren't, then reinstating the PROD would have been against policy, but it doesn't really make any difference, since, as I said above, I don't intend to do so anyway. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:55, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • More relevant to this discussion than blocks and bans is the question of sources. Thanks, Michael, for the link you gave, which is to a useful search site that I didn't know about. I looked at a sample of fifteen of the pages that are listed there, five from each of the first three pages of hits. Many of the pages listed were themselves lists of search results for various newspapers, in which case I looked at one or two of those second-level hits. There was a huge amount of duplication, with numerous slightly different searches on the same newspaper, often giving many of the same hits, so that the total number of different pages that showed up was smaller than you might think at a glance. Almost everything I saw was a page which did not contain substantial information about Atlee Kumar. Some were pages about his film, in which he was mentioned once or twice as the director, but he was not the subject of substantial coverage. Some were pages about other people, and mentioned Atlee Kumar just in passing. One of the pages I saw was no more than an announcement of a planned release date. In fact, of the pages I saw, just one of them was substantially about Atlee Kumar. The long and the short of all this is that, having spent a considerable amount of time looking at these search results, I finished with much the same result that I found earlier from a Google search. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:36, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:01, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete one film success not enough on its own without more WP:GNG sources in support. (Added the search website to my list of resources.) -- Green Cardamom (talk) 06:19, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Consensus view was that the sources provided by User:Green Cardamom demonstrate notability. Cerebellum (talk) 14:32, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Russian Union of Engineers[edit]

Russian Union of Engineers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG, advertising The Banner talk 10:38, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • The article has been corrected in if corresponding to the requirements. Please remove it from the list of articles for deletion--RomankevichLS (talk) 11:48, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You need to do a Google news search in Russian to see what coverage they have gotten, and link to at least two newspapers or magazines that have talked about them. Dream Focus 14:10, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:54, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:54, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:55, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:58, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
9 links that show their activities and support for the government but none of them is about the RUE. The Banner talk 18:37, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well actually these articles are about RUE's activities as an organization, just as book reviews are about the activities of an author are notable, or anything about what someone or something does is notable. A detailed biographical piece would be nice but it's not required to meet notability. These sources are not by RUE if that is what you mean (the "by" vs "about" debate), they are independent sources. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:03, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sources found that show they make headlines, and the news media considers them notable, dedicating entire articles to whatever expert opinion they gave on something. Dream Focus 19:03, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Russian Union of Engineers continues traditions of russian engineering communities of the twentieth century, however, it is a young society and hasn't received wide publicity in the media, especially abroad. In comparison with the other articles on Wikipedia, this article has a great value especially for Russia and for those people who will cooperate with Russia in the field of technology and investment. Kind regards and thanks to Dream Focus for information and links.--RomankevichLS (talk) 16:41, 24 October 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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 04:50, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Socialist Appeal (US, 1935)[edit]

Socialist Appeal (US, 1935) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No independent reliable sources establishing notability. Downwoody (talk) 10:32, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:45, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:45, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I 100% guarantee that a piece on the 1936-38 American Trotskyist paper could be sourced out, passing GNG. This is an eclectic mishmosh of publications sharing the same name, however, with the main object of the article being coverage of a current American publication. I have no great certainty that the current publication can be sourced out, but neither do I dismiss the possibility. I don't have time to look, gotta get ready for work. I'll return to this later. Carrite (talk) 16:16, 22 October 2013 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 16:17, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Awww fuck, I'm gonna be late. I've figured out how one might save this piece. The main article should be on the 1936-38 publication (passing GNG), with info about the contemporary publication tagged on. Not completely kosher to do it that way, of course, but it would be sustainable at AfD. Ideally, these two publications would be completely separated, since all they share is a name. Carrite (talk) 16:21, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:00, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This has been gutted of unrelated contemporary material and retitled and now should stand as a Keep. Needs work, I'll get to it if this closes Keep. As to GNG, see Joseph Hansen, "The Militant, New Militant, Labor Action, Socialist Appeal, The Militant" in Joseph R. Conlin, The American Radical Press, 1880-1960. Greenwood Press, 1974, v. 1, pp. 326-336. Also: Max Shachtman, "Introduction," to Socialist Appeal: An Organ of Revolutionary Socialism: Volumes 1-3, 1934-1937. Greenwood Reprint Corporation, 1968, unpaginated but runs two quarto pages. The volume Socialist Appeal: An Organ of Revolutionary Socialism: Volumes 1-3, 1934-1937 is readily available in libraries; the publication is also available online HERE for the 1935-1937 Chicago issues and HERE for the 1937 New York issues and HERE for the 1938 issues and HERE for 1939 and HERE for 1940. These last are primary sources and don't count to GNG by themselves, but it does indicate ongoing contemporary interest in the paper. Other substantial coverage which does count to GNG may be found in Peter Drucker, Max Shachtman and His Left: A Socialist's Odyssey Through the "American Century." Humanities Press, 1994, pp. 82-83, 94-95, 111, 119. That should be enough to satisfy GNG, there are three to five more things I could cite if I needed to put 15 minutes more research into it. Carrite (talk) 15:26, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here's one more quickie counting to GNG: "Socialist Appeal" (Chicago) and "Socialist Appeal" (New York) in Walter Goldwater, Radical Periodicals in America, 1890-1950. Yale University Library, 1964, pg. 38. Carrite (talk) 15:32, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Carrite's reasoning and efforts. --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:05, 30 October 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. Saying sources exist without providing them is useless. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 09:00, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DbForge Data Compare for Oracle[edit]

DbForge Data Compare for Oracle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Prodded a week ago for having no secondary sources; prod template removed without explanation half an hour before it expired, article still has no secondary sources. The same goes for these three other articles about the same company's products, which I am bundling into the same AfD:

DbForge Schema Compare for Oracle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
DbForge SQL Complete (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
DbForge Studio for MySQL (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

All of these software articles lack any secondary sources, and appear to be being edited by a user with a conflict of interest. --McGeddon (talk) 10:31, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to revise all of these software articles as soon as possible and add external links from trustworthy resources. Is is possible to delay the deletion deadline for 24 more hours? -Marina Nastenko (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:49, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:22, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. No reliable third party sources. - MrOllie (talk) 14:03, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This company is a integration partner of Microsoft and Oracle. They are clearly notable. Sources are available. scope_creep talk 19:50 24 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete - No reliable references in article to support notability of this software. A search did not reveal any RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional. This is an article on software, not the company, and notability is not inherited, so taking the position that Devart (currently in a separate afd discussion) is notable is not an argument for keeping this article.Dialectric (talk) 08:05, 26 October 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. Notability is not established by association. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 09:06, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Devart[edit]

Devart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Prodded last week for lacking any in-depth secondary sources, just a Microsoft press release mentioning Devart in passing. Article creator has since only been able to provide a couple of reprinted press releases ("Devart Team is proud to introduce...", "Devart has recently announced...") and a three-paragraph German article which seems minor. McGeddon (talk) 09:59, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New backlinks to Devart's External links from Independent publishing sources have been added, please, revise the suggestion for deletion. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:42, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The only link added following this AfD nomination was this oracle.com site which lists Devart as part of the "Oracle PartnerNetwork", along with 21873 other companies. ("The partners listed in the Oracle PartnerNetwork (OPN) Solutions Catalog are part of the Oracle PartnerNetwork Program, however Oracle does not endorse any of the partners or their software, solutions, services or training listed on this site.") This is not a reliable secondary source, and I can't see that it confers any notability. --McGeddon (talk) 11:06, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Software company SmartBear Software and software Toad only contain links to company web-sites and published releases which are sufficient. --Marina Nastenko (talk) 11:14, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How is this relevant to a discussion on Devart? I see no mention of 'SmartBear Software' in the Devart article or refs. If you are making a Wikipedia:Other stuff exists argument, note that the existence of similar but unrelated articles does not in itself support keeping a given article.Dialectric (talk) 13:51, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:24, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:24, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:24, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per nom, refs provided thusfar are all press releases, developers' sites, or incidental mentions, and thus article lacks independent reliable source coverage to establish notability of this software company. A search did not reveal any RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 14:01, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Needs coverage in reliable, third party sources. Has none. - MrOllie (talk) 14:05, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I cannot find any WP:RSes that discuss the subject at length therefore it fails WP:GNG or any other notability guideline. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:05, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The company is an official Microsoft Visual Studio Partner and has been a member of Microsoft developer network since 2008 --188.163.187.246 (talk) 14:26, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Devart is an old and well established, primary software provider to the software industry, developing connectivity and domain layer products for database software manufactures. In the early part of the century, their ADO providers were used by everybody. The first five software houses I worked at, all them were using their products. Recently I was using the DbForge Studio for Oracle. The reason we bought it, was because it was the best. There is perhaps only 3 OEM software designers that create these types of products in the World. The other big one is Quest. They are also partners of Microsoft, Oracle, HP, IBM, SAP and SalesForce. McGeddon makes the argument that Oracle has 21K+ partners, and Devart being a partner doesn't confer notability. Microsoft and Oracle are the No 1 and No 3 software developers in the world by body count. They are Leviathans. They are development/integration partners of Devart. Integration means that they actively bundle their software in with another manufactures product, and spend a bundle of money so it integrates correctly. Not some 'Mon and Pop organization, that are ten a penny, that contacts Oracle or MS and says, we will sell your products, can you give us support. Sure. You can be a partner'. It is a very prestigious organization that can get to be a development partner. Microsoft's development product, Visual Studio is the world premier software development IDE. It cost about £11,000 pounds for the full version, here in the UK. Devart's products are integrated into it. As regards sources: has anyone actually went out and looked for them. There are several entries in Google Books, a whole raft of developer sites, the very large number indicating the products popularity. There is also several review sites. They are clearly notable and deserve a WP page. As an aside, when you are looking for sources, don't use the search term for Devart. All you'll find is press releases. Instead search for an individual product. scope_creep talk 19:35 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Please provide links to the google books refs you found. If they are more than incidental mentions, then they would go a long way towards establishing notability.Dialectric (talk) 23:54, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Needs coverage in reliable, third party sources. Has none. MatsTheGreat (talk) 10:14, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and send to the Recycle Bin - All I'm seeing are insignificant mentions or press releases. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 03:16, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Devart regularly sponsors thematic conferences and user groups. New backlinks to Devart's External links from Independent publishing sources have been added.— Sergei Kharchenko (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 09:20, October 31, 2013‎ (UTC).
  • Delete, the keep arguments above make the argument that Devart is notable because their products are used by big companies, and they sponsor various events. In the light of the lack of independent and substantial coverage of them as a software vendor, I do not see how this establishes their notability. Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:00, 2 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 Australia ICOMOS. This decision does not rule out the ability for Australia ICOMOS (and thereby the content in Historic Environment) to be deemed as unfit for the encyclopedia at a later date. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 09:18, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Historic Environment[edit]

Historic Environment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable journal. Claimed to be "the pre-eminent publication on heritage conservation in Australia", but there is no independent source for that (and in any case, how many such publications will there be in Australia?) Not indexed in any selective databases (nor, as far as I can see, in any other database). According to WorldCat held in 80 libraries worldwide, which is decidedly less than stellar. On talk page of article an anti-Australian bias is claimed to explain the lack of indexing. This is demonstrably false, Thomson Reuters indexes no less than 86 journals with the word "Australian" in their title and the journal is not indexed in any non-TR databases either. The only remaining claim for notability is a ranking obtained in the 2010 Australian Excellence in Research for Australia exercise. Note that this journal ranking was abandoned in the 2012 exercise. Given the lack of indexing and independent sources, this does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG, hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 07:15, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strongly support keeping this article. Australia ICOMOS is highly regarded in Australia and its Historic Environment has been the primary publication for matters of heritage conservation in Australia for over 30 years. This is demonstrated by the number of references to articles in the journal and its role in publishing the major conservation conference in Australia. Historic Environment commenced at a time when the heritage conservation movement was in its infancy in Australia, and has documented its growth and maturation. WorldCat lists it in over 80 libraries world wide which is high for an Australian journal. This includes all of the Australian state libraries and major Australian and New Zealand university libraries. WP:NJournals states "one can also look at how frequently the journal is held in various academic libraries (this information is available in Worldcat." Australia is a small realm - 24 million people - where heritage conservation has had a higher relative status than in many countries. The significance of the Burra Charter - one of the few local ICOMOS charters to be developed from the Venice Charter is indicative of this. Historic Environment has played a major role in this process. It is wrong to suggest that Excellence in Research for Australia has been abandoned as the next round of assessment is in 2015. ERA is after-all the only concerted attempt to rank Australian academic publications in the humanities in Australia. The ERA 2012 Journal List includes Historic Environment as a "journal that [is] eligible for institutions’ ERA 2012 submissions – that is, scholarly, peer reviewed journals that publish original research and were active during the ERA 2012 reference period for research outputs (1 January 2005 – 31 December 2010)".[25] Thomson Reuters and the other the 'major indexing services' are much more focussed on sciences and US/Europe areas of scholarship - again a consequence of the Tyranny of Distance experienced in Australia. I know that Google searches don't count, but a tight search on ISSN0726-6715 produces over 700 results, while <"Historic Environment" "Australia ICOMOS" -wikipedia> produces over 8000 results. There are also ten other Wikipedia articles on diverse subjects which cite Historic Environment as a major source and many more in the reflists links of other articles. Keep Garyvines (talk) 09:26, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If this journal is indeed so highly regarded, then there should be sources documenting this. They can certainly be local (i.e. Australian). When I check Google Scholar (clicking the link above), I don't see lots of citations to this journal. Thomson Reuters is not just focused on the sciences, they also have the Arts and Humanities Citation Index, which contains 8 Australian journals. Besides Thomson Reuters, there are more specialized selective databases, none of those carry the journal either. The Australian ERA ranked journals in 2010, which is mentioned in the article on Historical Environment, the ERA was not abandoned, of course, but the ranking was. All the assessment says is that this is a repectable journal (which nobody denies), but respectable does not equal notable. Number of times cited by WP or Ghits are indeed absolutely irrelevant here. --Randykitty (talk) 10:57, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • In support of not deleting this article, I would like to point out that Historic Environment is catalogued by the Australian Public Affairs Information Service (APAIS). This is another, Australian focused index service which is widely used by those interesting in the social sciences and humanities in Australia. Wikipedia as an international encyclopaedia has a role in including noteworthy institutions, publications, ideas and things from around the world. I feel that removing information regarding Historic Environment and journals like it would decrease the usefulness of Wikipedia as a neutral repository notable ideas and information from around the world. There are third-parties who refer to this journal and regard it as notable enough to include in their index services. This Wikipedia article provides a useful place to summarise this information for others to refer to. Hence: Keep NickP86 (talk) 12:03, 22 October 2013 (UTC) — NickP86 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • I also strongly support this article. It seems to me ironic that the person going by the pseudonym "Randykitty" lists no qualifications on their personal page and in particular, nothing relevant to either Australia or the subject matter of the journal. In fact, other than 20,000 Wikipedia edits, Randykitty seems to have no authority in the matter. Put simply, in a debate over "regard" there is no reason to "regard" the opinions of the putative Randykitty any more than any other person. In my opinion, this is a debate in which, regrettably, perseverance rather than evidence will win. My suspicion is that, since Randykitty puts so much effort into Wikipedia, he/she/it will win due solely to persistence so an article which to me seems reasonable, indeed more so than many many others on Wikipedia, will be deleted. It is a bizarre form of bullying! Keep Sovsw (talk) 12:06, 22 October 2013 (UTC) — Sovsw (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Unfortunately for you, it doesn't matter at all whether I know anything about Australia, the topic of this journal, or not. As far as you know, I could be the cleaning lady who just cleaned your toilet, or I could be the head of an academic department. Or a pimply teenager. It actually doesn't matter, WP is a community effort and nobody has any "authority" here. Instead, WP has policies and guidelines by which we go. The outcome of this discussion will be decided by an impartial, uninvolved administrator, who will judge based on the merit of policy-based arguments. Referring to other articles on WP that are putatively worse, is not an effective argument (we call that WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS). Attacking the nominator, instead of providing substantive arguments, is, I gingerly suggest, an even less effective strategy (see Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions). --Randykitty (talk) 12:54, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:08, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:08, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I can't see why the ERA 2010 Ranking, RMIT's Australian Heritage Bibliography indexing and the WorldCat listing in 80 libraries is not sufficient to demonstrate notability. WP:NJournals says "...that the journal is included in the major indexing services in its field". In the absence of more comprehensive indexing and ranking for Australian humanities journals, and the acknowledged inadequacies of the citation indices - for example: "For journals in humanities, the existing citation indices and GoogleScholar often provide inadequate and incomplete information." then the Australian sources should be sufficient. There is no threshold described in WP:NJournals for library inclusion, which is just based on the statement "...one can also look at how frequently the journal is held in various academic libraries", so it cannot be said that inclusion in 80 libraries "...is decidedly less than stellar". Considering that these include all the major State and University Libraries in Australia, then the Journal must be considered something essential to the field. Again, Australia is a small country so notability in this realm will have lower numbers than in the 20 times larger US.Garyvines (talk) 13:56, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The ERA ranking of journals was a one-time exercise and obviously not satisfactory, as it has been abandoned. I see no evidence that the Australian Heritage Bibliography is selective. 80 libraries, even for a humanities journal, is not huge. Most of these libraries will not, in fact, have a subscription to the journal itself, but to the AHB and hence to all the journals that it includes. So they list it in their catalogues. In addition, several of the WorldCat entries seem to be outdated/incorrect. Try clicking on some of those libraries and then search their catalogue for the journal. So far, I haven't found a library yet that actually carries it. --Randykitty (talk) 14:12, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment On your last point - the first few libraries I checked indicate they indicate copies of the journal are on shelf [26]; [27]; [28]; [29] so I don't know why you claim most of these... will not ... have subscriptions, similarly I don't see why the ERA ranking should be entirely dismissed. Is was a concerted effort by the Australian Research Council to rank academic journals, and it resulted in Historic Environment obtaining the highest ranking. The ARC is the top body setting standards for research and handing out most of the research grant funding in Australia, and its judgement should not be dismissed so lightlyGaryvines (talk) 15:28, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • HE did not get the highest ranking (A*), but was on the second rank (A). Obviously, the ERA ranking was unsatisfactory, hence it was abolished. As for the libraries, I clicked the first four or five that WorldCat showed for Australia. --Randykitty (talk) 16:25, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • My apologies on the mistake about rank level. It is not obvious, however, that the ERA ranking was completely unsatisfactory or that the rank given to Historic Environment was undeserved, as it is still referred to in their web site and the 2015 consultation process is underway, and looks like taking up a new modified ranking procedure. Garyvines (talk) 01:16, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect to Australia ICOMOS. I could not find multiple reliable sources for this journal/magazine. RMIT's Australian Heritage Bibliography indexing point towards notability. I think we need to be careful of systemic bias here; it is possible that the magazine is notable as "a significant publication in a non-trivial niche market, per Wikipedia:WikiProject Magazines#Notability item number 5. For this reason, Keep is OK by me as well. But I don't know enough about this magazine to be able to confidently assert a keep. What I do know is that the magazine is easily verifiable. Per WP:PRESERVE, we should try to preserve verifiable information rather than delete it. This magazine is produced by Australia ICOMOS and already has a short paragraph there; it seems the best target. The title is somewhat generic, but as the proper title of the magazine, I think a redirect is warannted. --Mark viking (talk) 17:32, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the retention of this article. Firstly, it is not a magazine it is a journal. Secondly, it seems that the editor Randykitty has a vindictive attitude and has set some absurd barriers to this journal being even mentioned in Wikipedia and I would like to report them in some way for their unreasonable attitude and request a more nuanced editing. This move to delete is clearly initiated once they were criticised for their attitude on this and other forums. I feel that what was a fairly inoffensive article has been pounced upon by the full weight of the incomprehensible wikipedia bureaucracy prompted by an editor with "a bee in their bonnet".
The ERA Ranking is a good indication especially as it was the only Australian based ranking and one that took in journals from the Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences. There were other reasons for abandoning the ERA as well. Historic Environment like most academic journals in this particular field suffers from the fact that the rankings and H indexing process is focussed on the science field and on journals owned by mega publishers (who often also run the rankings system and the citation indexes). Journals that are not in these areas have been ignored for years (Google Scholar for example initially was biased towards journals in the Sciences)and this was one of the real reasons why the ERA ranking was criticised - it did not fairly represent all fields of academic excellence.
Are there other ways of establishing notability that can be used in this case? KEEP. Iain Stuart (talk) 20:27, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yep, sure Iain, I'm notorious around here for my unreasonable and vindictive attitude. You can file a report on my absurd editing here. Regarding your other arguments: I have shown above quite convincingly that several reputable databases do include academic journals other than scientific ones and have no demonstrable bias against Australian journals in particular. If they have any bias, it's against journals that are not published in English. Besides Thomson Reuters, there are many other selective databases. Inclusion in them can also make a journal notable, TR is not the only reputable one. Scopus, for example, also includes many journals from the arts, humanities, and social sciences. --Randykitty (talk) 21:01, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - for all of the canvassing, SPAs, personal attacks, ad-hom nastiness and WP:OSE, I'm struggling to find a coherent argument for keeping this article. The article itself is promotional and little of that promotion is supported by reliable sources. The indexing rates seem lower than we would normally expect from even "niche" industry/academic journals. I certainly couldn't find anything by way of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources to allow it to pass WP:GNG. Merge seems sensible but I have serious doubts about the notability of Australia ICOMOS per WP:ORGDEPTH so what would be the point of that? Stalwart111 21:47, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • If by 'canvassing' you are referring to my comments to Iain Stuart‎ and PeterMarquisKyle‎, these were the only Wikipedia editors I contacted, and both had previously provided their own opinions on Talk:Historic Environment, so I was in no way influencing them. I know both people as humans, and you might see that we all edit with our real names rather than an anonymous handle. On the actual topic of notability, I have carefully read the WP:NJournals criteria, and responded accordingly, and cannot fathom why the hardline interpretation is being taken by Randykitty and now yourself, when a reasonable interpretation suggests Historic Environment meets both the letter and intent of the notability criteria. To reiterate: - in respect of criterion "...one can also look at how frequently the journal is held in various academic libraries", Worldcat gives over 80 results. I have seen nothing to demonstrate that this is not a useful number, despite Randykitty saying it is "...decidedly less than stellar"; - ERA is an academic journal ranking system which rated Historic Environment highly; - the journal is indexed by RMIT's Australian Heritage Bibliography and APAIS; a bit of searching quickly finds many other sources which cite articles in Historic Environment.Garyvines (talk) 02:19, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wasn't specifically, no. You posted those two comments, I raised those with you and you haven't posted anything like that since. What concerns me more (and perhaps I should have specified as much more clearly) is that there seems to be some major off-wiki canvassing going on. It would seem someone is getting in touch with their friends/colleagues and asking them to show up at Wikipedia to "save" the article. How else do you explain the sudden influx of random single-purpose accounts suddenly noticing the article or the AFD and seeking to comment? Such an influx is completely at odds with the article's page view statistics and the the basic laws of probability. Given the atrocious vitriol, non-policy-based arguments, ad-hominem and rampant WP:OSE (all of which is contrary to policies that most new editors are encouraged to read well before they first contribute to internal Wikipedia machinations like AFD) I think it's fair to assume that someone has reached for their heritage industry email list. Stalwart111 02:52, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can we have some form of serious and professional review of this. If Historic Environment goes then so should all the articles on List of scientific journals.
Google Scholar is nowhere near a comparison to a government listing of peer reviewed publications. You have to add your work to google scholar. Mainly used by academics to demonstrate reasons for promotion. Maybe all the sportspeople should be taken down. There are degrees of notablity ... I would think a peer reviewed publication from an international professional body far exceeds someone who played 3 games of baseball. Everything, even "notablity" should be relative.
I used to be quite active in wiki. Adding information and sources and attempting to be constructive/ Wikipedia started off so nicely and now it is pythonesque "noone expects the spanish inquisition"/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gervo1865 (talk • contribs) 23:14, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you "used to be quite active in wiki" then you should be aware than none of the arguments you've presented are policy-based reasons for keeping this article and most of them are simply arguments that other stuff exists and so this article should too. It doesn't work that way. If you find other articles that also fail Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines you should free free to nominate those for deletion too. You all need to have a read of WP:MEAT. This is a "serious and professional review", hindered only by unprofessional commentary from some contributors. Stalwart111 01:33, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm, WP:MEAT also says "The term meatpuppet is derogatory and should be used with care ... it may be counterproductive to directly accuse someone of being a "meatpuppet", and doing so will often only inflame the dispute."Garyvines (talk) 02:25, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It does, it is, it should be and I didn't call anyone a "meat-puppet". But if the shoe fits... I didn't come up with the term but it is the term that fits this situation and I referred contributors to the relevant part of the relevant policy. None of that disclaimer suggests we shouldn't enforce policy just because someone might be offended by the application of an accurate descriptor. Stalwart111 10:03, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a PhD in Australian architectural history, I have been working for an Australian state government heritage office for 10 years and for the last 3 years I have been conducting an independent oral history project interviewing senior heritage practitioners in Australia and New Zealand for the National LIbrary of Australia. I would like to reiterate that Historic Environment is an excellent journal, the mouthpiece of Australia ICOMOS, which is the national chapter of the peak international society of heritage professionals, and it is a critical gathering point of heritage information for heritage practitioners in Australia. I haven't read all of Wikipedia's policies and protocols but it seems common sense to me that an entry notifying the public of the existence and usefulness of Historic Environment is appropriate. I can understand that it doesn't come up as an outstanding journal in the academic indexes because it is oritented at heritage practice rather than heritage theory. I would suggest that Historic Environment is actually widely read rather than cited. Bronwyn Hanna — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.3.232.28 (talk) 00:47, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • With respect, your personal (even professional) opinion about the usefulness of the subject is irrelevant. Existence is also not an inclusion criteria. You need to demonstrate notability which at the most basic level involves the subject having received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. To be frank, it's frustrating to read commentary from people who "have a PhD" in which they admit they "haven't read all of Wikipedia's policies" but decide it is sensible to comment even when instructions at the top of every AFD (when you edit) make the point that these discussions are based on policy and guidelines. You accept this is a policy-based discussion but that your commentary is not policy-based - what, with respect, do you hope to achieve? Stalwart111 01:33, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The friendly introduction to this section above describes this as a "discussion" and invites comment, it does not state you have to be an expert on the Wikipedia policy manual to have a say. Surely your concern is with the integrity of the proposed entry and my comment is suggesting that the integrity of the entry and of Historic Environment itself may demonstrated by means other than academic indices, for example, that widespread industry admiration for the journal should be accorded some recognition even if that is not readily measured by your singular standard. The thing I like about Wikipedia, and defend it for in arguments in various forums, is its attempt to make a broader array of information/ knowledge available and accessible than for example was done or even possible with older compendiums of information/ knowledge such as the Encyclopaedia Britannica. Wikipedia should be making a concerted effort to retain this one of its key attributes. Bronwyn Hanna — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.3.232.28 (talk) 03:21, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The note above the editing window says (in part):

All input is welcome, though valid arguments citing relevant guidelines will be given more weight than unsupported statements; discussion guidelines are available.

You don't need to be an "expert", but making some attempt to familiarise yourself with guidelines would be a good idea. The issue is not with the "integrity" of the article but with the notability of the subject. Plenty of notable subjects are covered here with low-quality articles including (ironically) Australian heritage. That's why we encourage people to fix those problems. But no amount of editing will fix a lack of notability. "Widespread industry admiration for the journal" can be accorded some recognition if that recognition is detailed in reliable sources. Obviously Wikipedia can provide a broader range of information/knowledge than paper encyclopaedias, however, there is an important distinction between what can be done, and what should be done (WP:NOTPAPER). Stalwart111 04:25, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have had a go at a merged Australia ICOMOS/Historic Environment article. If editors consider this a more appropriate response to the debate, perhaps this can also be discussed.Garyvines (talk) 03:27, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge (same thing for closing purposes). RK's research is excellent and a solid application of the rules. Props to Garyvines for working up a compromise solution. Shakes fist at the unnecessary personal attacks. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 06:10, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I still would like to see both Australia ICOMOS and Historic Environment kept as separate articles, and I still think Randykitty's dismissal of the Australian ranking, bibliographic and indexing is unreasonable, but if the final decision is merge, then the former might be replaced with the version in my sandbox Australia ICOMOS/Historic Environment. I suspect before long the notability evidence for historic Environement will be produced, either bythe next round of ARC rankings, some work to get the US based indexes to incorporate more Australian coverage, or some further coverage in other newsworthy sources. Garyvines (talk) 06:55, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • As above, I'm not sure that would solve the problem here. Doubling the size of the Australia ICOMOS to include information from Historic Environment doesn't fix the fact that much of that information remains without verification by independent reliable sources. The gushing article lede is sourced to the organsiation itself. Of course the organisation would say that about itself! We don't cover what organisations have said about themselves - we cover what other organisations, media outlets and people have said about them. If the organisation wants to say nice things about itself, it should do so elsewhere because Wikipedia doesn't exist for that purpose. I haven't seen any evidence of anyone saying anything about them, let alone significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Copy-pasting the content from one deleted article into another is not a particularly productive endeavour. I should tell you I'm giving serious consideration to nominating Australia ICOMOS for deletion too if editors can't step up to meet their WP:BURDEN and establish notability. Stalwart111 08:53, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • We rarely have articles on the national chapter of an international organization, because they rarely are independently notable. ICOMOS has a large number of such chapters and the best thing probably is to redirect the article on the Australian chapter there. --Randykitty (talk) 11:41, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So actually being an expert in the subject is not a criterion for having a valid opinion on this matter, surely this simply reinforces the stereotyped opinion of Wikipedia. Now RandyKitty out of pure vindictiveness is going to attack other articles where will it end. The problem here seems to be the high barriers set up by a self-opinionated "expert" editor who simply refuses to believe any evidence put forward. Usually I've found Wikipediua editors much more helpful and constructive working with people. One really unhelpful element is speed in which everything is happening as we all have real jobs and editing Wikipedia is something we do in our spare time. Iain Stuart (talk) 19:58, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Now RandyKitty out of pure vindictiveness is going to attack other articles" - Stop attacking people see WP:CIVIL. If you have evidence of WP:HOUNDing than open a case elsewhere. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 20:15, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Iain Stuart et al. For the last time: "opinions" don't count here. Neither has "notable" in the WP sense anything to do with "useful", "worthwhile", "deserving", or good or bad. What we need are sources. For the moment, the only indications of possible notability are the ERA ranking and the library holdings. I have given my take on this, you have all given your take on it. There's no need to keep re-hashing the same arguments over and over again, you're just making the job of the closing admin more difficult. That person will look at our arguments and based on those and Wikipedia policy come to a judgment. If he agrees with you, the article will be kept. If he thinks that the arguments for and against have about equal merit, the decision will be "no consensus" (which defaults to keep, deletion is intentionally made difficult, only for clear-cut cases). Only if the closing admin completely agrees with the arguments to delete the article will it, in fact, be deleted. You should have a little bit more trust in the process. It's the closin admin who will decide about deletion or not, not any of the participants to this discussion (including myself). I repeat that arguments have to be policy based and you'd do well to familiarize yourself with them, becuse otherwise you will be ignored. And as Green Cardamon told you just above, you should also read up on WP:CIVIL (and when you're at it, WP:NPA and WP:AGF). If you take a moment to read through the discussion above, you will see that I have been courteous throughout. I have pointed you to WP:ANI, where you can file a complaint about my behavior if you feel this is necessary. I have a thick skin and a lot of patience. However, there's an end to everything. The next time one of you casts doubt on my good faith or casts doubt on my integrity, I will file a complaint at ANI myself. You have been warned multiple times by multiple editors, you may regard this as a final warning. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 21:01, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, calm down everyone and concentrate on the job at hand - which is producing a worthwhile article about a notable subject (as in, it is notable outside of Wikipedia, but needs to be shown to be so inside WP) - I have addressed as many of the issues as I can in my proposed new combined article User:Garyvines/sandbox. From last night's comments above (I slept while you had a go at each other), I have the following to offer:- (1) "verification by independent reliable sources" is clear. There are 6: - National Trust Australia; Susan Thompson; Marta De la Torre, Getty Conservation Institute; Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, (an Australian Government department); Robert Bevan, The Australian newspaper; Samantha Fabry. (There are several other independent sources that refer to the journal availability but not notability). (2) "The gushing article lede (lead?)" has been reworded to "Australia ICOMOS is the peak cultural heritage conservation body in Australia. It is a branch of the United Nations-sponsored International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS), a non-government professional organization promoting expertise in the conservation of cultural heritage.[1]" - it is the peak body, and this is substantiated in the reference and later in the article. (3) the statement "I haven't seen any evidence of anyone saying anything about them" is patentaly not true given the above sources; (4) In regards "rarely have articles on the national chapter of an international organization" - I have made the point above and in the original and proposed revised combined version of the article, that Austrlaia ICOMOS is a special case because of its role in developing the Burra Charter, and the promulgation of heritage expertise, policy and influence in other areas - references note China, Malta, and I have added the Phillipines and Ankor Wat to the list of Australia ICOMOS activities. (5) I accept that combining Australia ICOMOS and Historic Environment doesn't necessarily give any greater weight to either article, and the notability by association is not a criteria. However, given that HE is the source of much documentation about the activities of Australia ICOMOS, and the above arguement should establish its separate notability, then I think it reasonable to include the details of the journal here. ..Now, I have been the only one to edit these two articles to try and demonstrate notability, or search for the sources that might do so. The two antagonists on the other side of this debate have spent a fair bit of energy in trying to disprove notability. Several others have taken offence in the discussion to various things not connected to the purpose of editing good articles. If all this effort had gone ito writing for Wikipedia, then we would have something to be proud of. Now all go away, and have a cup of tea, a Bex and a good lie down. Garyvines (talk) 23:25, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Australia ICOMOS with this draft as a base. I did have concerns about the notability of Australia ICOMOS which have now been more than adequately addressed by Garyvines in his draft. The Thompson and De la Torre sources (references 1 and 5 in his draft) are particularly good, I think, and establish the notability of the organisation in its own right without too much trouble. I've gone ahead and added GoogleBooks links for both sources for ease of referencing. I object to the characterisation that I "spent a fair bit of energy in trying to disprove notability" when in fact I simply quoted policy and guidelines and waited for supporters of the article to meet their WP:BURDEN as content creators here, but that's really a moot point now. As Gary suggests, there is a good deal of expertise among those who have been encouraged to "vote" here - if only their energy had been spent contributing to Wikipedia in useful ways...
I still don't think anyone has adequately established the notability of Historic Environment yet (and I don't think they will given the sources) but a short paragraph (not a replica of the old article copy-pasted) would not be a problematic addition to the article for the organisation that publishes it. Stalwart111 00:00, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merging the articles on "Historic Environment" and Australia ICOMOS sounds like a sensible compromise. With regards to establishing the notability of "Historic Environment", I'm not sure that the APAIS and the ERA 2010 journal list, which were mentioned earlier, are irrelevant to demonstrating the notability of a publication with independent lists.

Here are some comments on both lists, although perhaps they might better belong somewhere else (If one of the more experienced users could point me to somewhere in the Wikipedia essays and talk pages which might be relevant, I'd be much obliged.)

The APAIS is a selective list in that it only indexes Australian scholarly journals and related material. If the compliers of the index do not consider a journal 'scholarly' it is not listed. An example of an Australian journal which is peer-reviewed, but not listed in the APAIS (listed here) is the [http://www.aima-underwater.org.au/bulletin/ Bulletin of the Australasian Institute of Maritime Archaeology (apologies to my maritime archaeology friends).

The ERA 2010 journal list was controversial and dropped. However this was not because it listed too many journals as being of A* and A quality, but because it listed too few. To summarise the discussion from the time, some Australian ademics feared being forced to publish in particular journals in the future, or their past work not receiving the recognition they felt it deserved. A feel for the controversies of the time can be gained through reading articles like these:

The removal of rankings from the ERA list was announced in May 2011. The minister's media release, although in some ways a very political document, also makes it clear that the change to remove rankings from the journal list was on account of the abuses pointed out by these articles I've just referred to. The then Minister for Innovation, Kim Carr, said on 30 May 2011:

"There is clear and consistent evidence that the rankings were being deployed inappropriately within some quarters of the sector, in ways that could produce harmful outcomes, and based on a poor understanding of the actual role of the rankings. One common example was the setting of targets for publication in A and A* journals by institutional research managers." 'IMPROVEMENTS TO EXCELLENCE IN RESEARCH FOR AUSTRALIA'

Given this context and controversy, it seems understandable why Australia ICOMOS, as publishers of "Historic Environment" still mention their 2010 ERA ranking on 'their website', even though the list has been superseded for over 2 years. I hope that this clarifies how the APAIS and the 2010 ERA rankings are indeed independent, selective sources which recognise the importance of scholarly publications in Australia. NickP86 (talk) 13:00, 24 October 2013 (UTC) merge like above. MarioNovi (talk) 22:46, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep (WP:NAC) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:09, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Beatrice Thompson[edit]

Beatrice Thompson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Minimal notability, self-promotional in tone Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:24, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Charlotte's first African-American woman newscaster, with a career going back to 1977, as well documented in independent North Carolina media. Her 1999 dispute with a former employer was described in a documentary film about the banality of local TV news, and mentioned in the New York Times and Salon.com. The totality of the coverage over 36 years adds up to notability. Shortcomings in the article should be addressed by normal editing rather than deletion. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:22, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This looks like a WP:COPYVIO as a copy&paste of http://mediamavenbea.com/online/beatrice-thompson-bio/ … isn't that an automatic WP:CSD#G12? Happy Editing! — 96.231.5.47 (talk · contribs) 09:18, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 09:42, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 09:42, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 09:43, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:29, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Information that was in copyright violation has been removed from the article. Northamerica1000(talk) 09:47, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment which leaves a single sentence telling us next to nothing. No nationality, age or home. Just a vague statement that she's "broadcast veteran" and worked for two unnamed radio stations. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:52, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, since most content was in copyright violation, it had to be removed; this stubbified the article. This person may possibly meet WP:BASIC, but it will take source searching and analysis to verify this possibility. The article is no longer self-promotional in tone at this time. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:25, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Willis, Laurie D. (February 20, 2012). "Media pioneers' advice: Find your own strengths". The Charlotte Post. Retrieved 22 October 2013. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
 – Northamerica1000(talk) 13:38, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Cullen328 makes a good point. And reliable sources have been found. Dream Focus 13:57, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:58, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article written according to guidelines of Wikipedia (person is notable per secondary reliable sources like NY Times and more) Wikifan115 (talk) 22:02, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A long way from FA, but now well sourced enough to be a respectable article, in my view. DES (talk) 16:03, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is usually difficult to find any sourcing for broadcast journalists, this one has quite a few good ones, plus one of them actually even asserts notability ("The best talk talent in Charlotte"). -- Green Cardamom (talk) 19:02, 23 October 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 rice burger. Cerebellum (talk) 14:06, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bab burger[edit]

Bab burger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested prod. While the article does contain a single news article about this food item, I doubt it will be enough to show notability. More sources may be found in Korean, though. - Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 05:49, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Actually, it was deleted when the PROD expired, but the author asked that it be restored … they claim that there is an article in the Korean Wikipedia, but that is not sufficient to justify there also being one in the English Wikipedia. Happy Editing! — 96.231.5.47 (talk · contribs) 08:55, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 09:23, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 09:23, 22 October 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 Youth incarceration in the United States. This is a BLP1E, and therefore does not merit it's own article based on the level of notability. All relevant information can easily be included into the destination article. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 09:37, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quantel Lotts[edit]

Quantel Lotts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Can't see anything unique about this case. The citations all mention this case in passing as one of a growing number of cases of juvenile incarceration. At best, this could be merged into Youth incarceration in the United States or American juvenile justice system. -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 02:46, 22 October 2013 (UTC)  Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 02:46, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's not correct: the New York Times has an article about Lotts specifically; it fairly goes on to contextualize the case and address the problem of juvenile sentencing more broadly. CNN similarly has a long piece specifically about Lotts, also including a broader commentary. The Guardian has an article about Lotts and a video interview with him.
Many more sources reference Lotts tangentially, including the Associated Press, UPI, the Equal Justice Initiative, the Austin-American Statesman, USA Today, the Missouri Lawyers Media; a series of smaller news outlets or blogs address his case directly or tangentially. As the New York Times explains, Lotts' case is emblematic of the issue of life imprisonment without parol for minors, of harsh sentences for minors in the U.S., and Lotts has received more attention because his youth at the time of his brother's death makes his case more powerful when challenging life imprisonment for minors. -Darouet (talk) 03:39, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mild delete. Subject doesn't meet qualifications for perpetrators at WP:CRIMINAL. Coverage seems to be using it as an example of perceived extreme situations in the juvenile justice system, and the Wikipedia tendency is not to give articles for examples, but to accept noted ones as examples in topic articles. --Nat Gertler (talk) 04:16, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as the article's author. I think the details of Lotts' case and the coverage it received, in some large newspapers and in many smaller ones, merit an article. I think the case is important enough that I'm not writing "mild keep," but there are obviously more important ones, so I don't think I should write "strong keep" either. -Darouet (talk) 04:33, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 07:07, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 07:07, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 07:07, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Youth incarceration in the United States or another appropriate article. The subject fails WP:BLP1E, and basically while there are sources noted above, these all appear to use Lotts as the example of the problem, and not specifically how Lotts' case is notable. He should be called out in an article highlight problems with youth incarceration, but not as a standalone article. --MASEM (t) 15:00, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Significant ongoing coverage in multiple reliable international sources per WP:GNG. He has become a media poster child for a class of criminals. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:39, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also used as an archetypal criminal during a US Congressional hearing.[34] (pg. 5) Independent of the crime it confers notability after the crime as a representative figure, along with the other media sources CNN, NYT, Guardian etc.. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:46, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But if his relevancy is as an example for those topics, then it seems that under WP:CRIMINAL (A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person) we should be looking at the merge suggestions of the nominator. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:38, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: subject does meet WP:BASIC, and the substantial coverage Lotts has received, from his incarceration to subsequent debate over juvenile detention or prosecution, suggests that he is distinct from the many others with similar circumstances who would not, nevertheless, merit their own article. That said, the guidelines set out under WP:CRIMINAL and WP:BLP1E arguably apply here, and suggest a mechanism for including information in this article elsewhere. So, whatever everyone decides in the end, I'm fine with that! -Darouet (talk) 15:52, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Youth incarceration in the United States. In my view, even though there are enough sources here to confirm Lotts' notability, this is a WP:BLP1E case and it would be better not to have a standalone article on the subject. Lankiveil (speak to me) 04:49, 2 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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 23:08, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Noriko Osumi[edit]

Noriko Osumi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Japanese professor with no notability established. Three sources indicated are twitter feed, personal blog, and institution website. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:43, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - ja.wp article no better, 大隅典子 gets nothing in Google Books. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:10, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:15, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:15, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's hard to see how basic notability criteria have been satisfied given the lack of third-party sourcing or in-depth coverage. --DAJF (talk) 14:49, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:55, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:55, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A GS h-index of 40 (even though there may be some overcounting due to similar names) gives a clear pass of WP:Prof#C1, even in this highly cited field. Positions and awards add to notability. However the subject may be embarrassed by the peacockery of this BLP{. Xxanthippe (talk).
  • Keep. This resume-like BLP has to be rewritten, but she is notable. Beyond the publications and citations, her work is being reported in the major media: [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], etc. She also is president of the Molecular Biology Society of Japan ([40]), which would seem to satisfy criterion 6 of WP:ACADEMIC. According to ja:日本分子生物学会, it has 15,000 members. Michitaro (talk) 01:53, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. With a h-index of a least 40, clearly passes WP:Prof#C1, and as President of the Molecular Biology Society of Japan passes WP:Prof#C6 too. I find this nomination incomprehensible. -- 101.119.14.203 (talk) 12:55, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn by nominator. The point of this nomination was to draw attention of users interested in the topic (and others) that could help improve the article in question. It has indeed worked. Thanks everyone for their comments. Küñall (talk) 19:05, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aida Nikolaychuk[edit]

Aida Nikolaychuk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article makes extensive use of non-reliable sources. Since I don't read Ukrainian, I can't check if this girl is actually notable in her home country. Küñall (talk) 02:12, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please help me make sense of your action. You admit that "you can't read Ukrainian and you can't check if this "girl" is actually notable in her home country"??... Then, with all due respect, and, assuming you were acting in good faith, not just mamando gallo by purposely disrespecting Aida and calling her a "girl", then what are you doing here? and why did you stick your nose where it obviously doesn't belong? and why did you interfere with the flow of a newly created article, and requested to delete a subject that you know nothing about, that you have never researched and, by your own admittance, you are incapable of understanding? Don't you believe that your free time is better spent on learning English and when to use "whether" instead of "if" (after you gave yourself a license to attack my English in bad faith)? How would you like it if I requested deletion of the article on the wonderful Chilean singer Myriam Hernández, solamente pa molestar, and to interfere with the flow of that good article? This is what you did here!... except that you made a hard task harder and less enjoyable. Worldedixor (talk) 19:32, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The Ukrainian x-factor pages can be ignored but http://www.berlin24.ru/news/254-aida-nikolaychuk-v-berline.html/ etc. are reliable. Notability established in Ukrainian sources In ictu oculi (talk) 03:05, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG KEEP... This an extremely uninformed and premature request for deletion - First, calling a "woman" like Aida a "girl" is sexist and inappropriate. This is not the same as "chica" or "niña" in certain countries. Most importantly, this is what happens when an "uninformed" user with little or no world experience and cannot even read Ukrainian rushes, in bad faith and without extensive research, to delete an article that has just been created about a notable and highly talented singer who is to the Ukraine "relatively" what Kelly Clarkson is to America, or what Myriam Hernández is to Chile (hint), and who is breaking the tough barriers of her very small country because she sings well in English. She is already signed with Sony Music. I spent time in extensive research for this article, and this user just comes rushing in to Rfd the article, again without any extensive research. I cannot defeat uninformed ignorance, especially if this user is and Admin, as I do not read neither Ukrainian nor Russian. Also, since it is too early for Ukrainian and Russian fans to notice this article on the search engines, many of whom may not have the competence in English to participate in this article or support keeping this article... I ask a non-biased Admin to rally Ukrainians to SUPPORT keeping this article and removing this premature and uniformed Rfd. Also, many non-Ukrainian fans will need this article. Worldedixor (talk) 07:24, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (note: clarified the way the !vote was phrased Goldenshimmer (talk) 00:33, 23 October 2013 (UTC)) as involved editor. Goldenshimmer (talk) 14:20, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I should provide some rationale here… I think that the primary points of notability is are being signed with Sony Music and the third-party (not the X-Factor website) news coverage. She still might fail WP:BAND though. My two cents :) Goldenshimmer (talk) 17:40, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
User:Goldenshimmer, I didn't notice that the Sony signing refs - from Russian sources - were in the article when I supported, were they added after? Confirms the keep result anyway ... on a side note, where in the AfD guidelines does it say "When nominating for AfD do/don't run the original foreign language article through Google Translate" - I thought there was some mention, but can't find it. Would you or anyone else here know? In ictu oculi (talk) 00:00, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
User:In ictu oculi, I just added the Sony refs today when I reread the article for notability. I saw the Sony mention, and thought it indicated notability, but it was unsourced, so I found some sources and added them. I don't know about any policy for AfD regarding translations — sorry, I'm not totally up on my rules :(. After the AfD, I mentioned to the nom in IRC that I'd try to expand the article a bit. I discovered that the Uk Wikipedia already had a decent article, so I translated and merged it as best I could. (That's where the translation part came in.) I also added one or two extra refs, and removed some unsourced statements. I hope this helps :) Goldenshimmer (talk) 00:27, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Adding Sony refs: [41] Expanding from Uk article: [42] Cleaning up a bit: [43] Goldenshimmer (talk) 00:31, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you User:Goldenshimmer. User:Küñall please see WP:BEFORE No.6 which asks editors to check eg Ukrainian wikipedia sources before submitting AFDs. No harm done but please note, all the best. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:26, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
User:In ictu oculi, just so you know, there wasn't an interlanguage link for this article when it was nominated for deletion, so it might have been hard to find the Ukrainian one. The letter of WP:BEFORE only mentions looking at interlanguage links, not necessarily doing more in-depth searching (although I certainly agree with your statement in terms of the spirit of WP:BEFORE). I added the interlanguage link with this edit: [44]. Just my thoughts on why it might not have gotten uncovered sooner :) Goldenshimmer (talk) 14:44, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:16, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:16, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:17, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable musician and popular artist in Ukraine. A merge to the show she won might be worth discussing. But deletion would be inappropriate. Candleabracadabra (talk) 17:40, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Aida is notable not only because some think of her as a girl or that she is from x-factor. Aida has a remarkable singing talent that would be a great loss simply to ignore. She astonished many regular people as well as specialists and critics by her signing performance. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 22:27, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Her voice transitions during singing are remarkable. She has a great feel for rhythm and power of her voice cannot simply be ignored. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 22:36, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't delete. Aida Nikolaychuk is just a beginner and continues making a career after X-factor. Three singles and one video were released. Also she had a speech and photoshoot in Berlin. --ВікіПЕДист (talk) 19:01, 23 October 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. GedUK  13:57, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sortenstjerne[edit]

Sortenstjerne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article about a Danish family traced back to the mid-18th century gives no indication that the family (or indeed any of its members) were notable in any way. (The founder of the family was, according to the article, the slave of Frederik Christian Rosenkrantz, but notability is not inherited.) Google searches brought up nothing promising. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 00:45, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 00:49, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 00:49, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per nom. I've also tried to find any trace of notability by researching further, to my dismay I found nothing, only social networks, perhaps the article has a COI issue. There are no notable descendants from this family line. Eduemoni↑talk↓ 02:07, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:29, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTGENEALOGY and WP:OR. The text and self-published reference indicates that this is only someone's original research into their family genealogy. — CactusWriter (talk) 14:46, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The history of a black slave being brought to Denmark to live as a free man in the 18th century is historical interesting, and might have been relevant for articles about Black people in Denmark or the History of Danish slave trade if the story had been sufficiently covered in reliable secondary sources, but the only source here is a homesite (which includes a reference to a historical primary source); in addition the story is said to have been mentioned in a docu-novel, but that is not a very good secondary source either. So per WP:GNG this can't be a stand-alone article (where the genealogy aspect would have been irrelevant anyway, it should have been a biography if kept), and per WP:OR it can't even be merged into other articles with the sourcing situation that is documented so far. Unfortunately. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 20:56, 22 October 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2013_October_22&oldid=1142630573"