Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 October 24

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 23 October	25 October >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. copyvio from [1] Secret ^account 05:17, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sophy Gardner[edit]

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

Too soon - candidates in elections are not notable. She will be if she is elected. Fails WP:SOLDIER as well. No other indication of notability Gbawden (talk) 11:10, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Next United Kingdom general election (yes, that's really the name of the article). That is the usual practice at WP:POLITICIAN for a candidate who is otherwise not notable. It preserves the name and the article history, and makes it easy to expand the redirect back into an article if they should win. --MelanieN (talk) 17:41, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Numerous sources can be found here suggesting she easily meets the WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:43, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Political candidate who served as a mid-ranking officer in the RAF. Where is the notability? -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:57, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sources include this one, this one, this one, plus check this out. Also here and here and here and mention here in the BBC, plus the numerous other articles above.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:11, 17 October 2014 (UTC) Also here; plenty of in-depth sources means she easily meets the WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:19, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Candidacy for election is not a claim of notability that gets a person into an encyclopedia, so media coverage of the candidacy does not contribute to getting the candidate over WP:GNG. The media are legally and ethically required to give coverage to all candidates in any election in their coverage area, so the existence of said coverage falls under WP:ROUTINE — short of an unusual case on the order of the international media firestorm that ate Christine O'Donnell, if you cannot properly source that she was already notable enough for an article before she became a candidate, then she has to win the election to become notable enough and coverage of the candidacy itself cannot boost her notability in the meantime. Further, [2] and [3] are both primary sources that cannot contribute to her notability at all. Update: Should have added [4] as well; that's an article that she wrote herself, making it yet another invalid PRIMARYSOURCE. Bearcat (talk) 01:10, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where is there a Wikipedia guideline that says "Candidacy for election is not a claim of notability that gets a person into an encyclopedia"? And when is a RAF leader "routine"?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:23, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where is there a Wikipedia guideline that says "Candidacy for election is not a claim of notability that gets a person into an encyclopedia"? WP:NPOL simply does not permit "unelected candidate" as a claim of notability in and of itself. A person cannot claim notability under NPOL until they win election to a notable office; absent that, you have to be able to source them over some other notability criterion (e.g. as a musician, as a writer, as an athlete, etc.) so that their failure to pass NPOL is irrelevant.

And when is a RAF leader "routine"? I didn't say that it was — WP:ROUTINE is a property of the coverage, not of the person. Regardless, being in the RAF is not the thing that the sources you offered are covering her for. There's been no demonstration here that she got substantive coverage for the RAF — of all the sources you offered above, the invalid primary sources are the only ones that are covering her specifically in the RAF context. All of the reliable sources are covering her in the context of the candidacy, and are mentioning her past with the RAF only by way of background. Which is not the type of sourcing it takes to confer notability on her time with the RAF in and of itself — RS coverage of her time in the RAF, contemporary to her time in the RAF, is what it would take. Bearcat (talk) 02:17, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The rule says Just being ... an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article", so the issue of "unelected candidate" is irrelevant -- clearly she meets the WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:38, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What you have given us are local newspaper articles (yes, they do tend to write about local political candidates), her profile on a business website and a few mentions in articles relating to the RAF. This does not establish notability. It's purely routine coverage. If we accepted this as proof of notability then a large percentage of the population would be notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:22, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't see how Gloucester is a "local" place when it has a population of 123,000 persons. Serving in the Royal Air Force is a national endeavor which she did with notable distinction; so is running for Parliament. Not sure how the coverage is "routine" since it varies considerably -- it is not the same story running again and again, but rather new and different stories, in-depth, as required by the WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:39, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Local" means "not national"! We usually only accept substantial coverage in the national press as proof of notability. She was a wing commander in the RAF, which is a mid-ranking officer and not sufficient for notability (usually we would require her to be at least an air commodore). Being a parliamentary candidate does not mean someone is notable; this is a long-established standard. There are tens of thousands (at least) of political candidates internationally every year. "Routine" coverage means she has only been covered for "routine" things: being an RAF spokesman and a political candidate, for instance. Sorry, but nothing makes her stand out as a person more notable than any other person. If we had articles on everyone who was good at their job, stood for election and was written about because of it in the local press then we just wouldn't be a serious encyclopaedia. There have to be limits. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:49, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By your "not national" logic, then, neither all mayors of US cities would not be considered notable, nor US governors, nor presidential candidates who lost, nor candidates for US senate who lost, pretty much the encyclopedia would be limited to persons elected to national office. This is absurd; Wikipedia covers numerous candidates, mayors, members of Parliament (elected and unelected candidates too) because they meet the WP:GNG not because of some rule that only elected national candidates are notable. Or, in the United Kingdom, city mayors would not be notable simply because they were not national politicians, which again clearly does not make sense. Your argument that somehow the existing sources are "routine" is vacuous; routine means repeated regular stuff, nothing about the sources is routine. Rather, seems like you are simply voting delete because you don't like it and making up rules to skirt the GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:16, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you must have either misread or misunderstood. I said routine coverage in local media did not make someone notable. I did not say that one had to hold national office to be notable. Clearly mayors of major cities and state governors hold major offices and are covered in the national media. And unelected candidates for the Senate or Parliament are not notable for that alone, although they may of course be notable for something else. In fact, I am following Wikipedia's long-established standards for notability. It is you who seems to be saying WP:ILIKEIT and pointing to a collection of minor local news stories and official mentions of her doing her job as a mid-ranking officer as proof of her "notability"! You may notice that as yet you are a lone voice here? Why do you think that might be? -- Necrothesp (talk) 20:25, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I guess my problem is the whole idea of "local" is, in my view, very much in the eye of the beholder, and if you see "local" as "not national", as you wrote above, then frankly most newspapers, everywhere, since they invariably focus on a local area (city, town, county, state), would not contribute to notability. So we're left with say USA Today or in Britain The Guardian. If one's idea of "local" is size-related, then a city of 120,000 persons is clearly not insignificant, which Gloucester is. Frankly, I would have revamped the page earlier, and so many people have come across the substandard article, with their eyes glazing over with boring discussions such as this one between you and me, that they just vote Delete out of boredom, even though (in my view) she's notable. Just that I'm probably not going to revamp this article, even if it stays; got other stuff to do.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:35, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And there, I think, is possibly the crux of the matter. You do not understand how the British media works and assume it works the same way as the American media does. This is not the case. We have about ten national newspapers (all printed in London) and many local papers, which generally cover only very small areas (usually a single town or city or an area of a county) and generally only report on very localised issues (my local paper, in a city of well over 300,000 people, largely reports on such issues as the refurbishment of shopping centres, the efforts of local councillors to improve the drains, and the injury of locals in road accidents; it does not have anything to say on government policy or international affairs, since that is not its remit). Unlike America, most people who read newspapers read a national paper, although they may also buy a local paper for purely local news. Only the national papers are really valid in terms of establishing notability, as the local papers will report copiously on anything of local interest, including local councillors and candidates. If someone is not covered in the national press then it's a fair bet that they are not really notable enough for a Wikipedia article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:27, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If I "understand" British media correctly. If there's a "local" paper such as the Gloucester Citizen, then it won't have any national articles like this one in it, or this one, or this one about the royal couple's upcoming due date. Or, maybe since the Duke and Duchess are covered in the Gloucester citizen, then they're not notable.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:17, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You will notice that comments beneath the first article have queried why it's in a local paper in the first place, the second article is relevant to Gloucestershire and mentions a Gloucestershire farm, the third, well, the Royal Family are the Royal Family and everyone likes to write about them. My point stands. There is a big difference in Britain between national and local media that is perhaps not so obvious in some other countries. Your last sentence is patently ridiculous, since they are covered in the national media. A lot. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:00, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unelected candidate, thereby automatically failing WP:NPOL, with no strong or properly sourced claim to preexisting notability under another guideline — almost all of the sourcing here is of the primary source variety. No prejudice against recreation if and when she wins the seat, but right now she's a delete. Bearcat (talk) 01:13, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't see how "all of the sourcing here is of the primary variety" -- do you mean the current article, or sources I've pointed out here?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:23, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the article. Let's go over them, shall we? #1: Alumni newsletter of the elementary school she attended; #2: RAF; #4: her own LinkedIn profile; #5: Labour Party website; #6: profile on the webpage of a company she works for; #7: RAF; #8: Labour Party newsletter; #10: Labour Party newsletter. WP:PRIMARYSOURCES all. Leaves us with only #3, 9, 11 and 12, of which three are, guess what: more WP:ROUTINE coverage of the candidacy. Which means #3 is the only one that contributes anything to getting her over GNG, and one source isn't enough to put her over by itself. Bearcat (talk) 02:27, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See, that's the problem. You're basing your deletion on sources currently in the article (which I agree are clearly problematic). But article content does not determine notability -- and clearly there are numerous reliable independent secondary sources, listed in my previous posts on this page.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:56, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Next United Kingdom general election; Subject appears to not have received significant coverage outside of being a candidate in an upcoming election; therefore per WP:POLOUTCOMES the article should be made into a redirect into the article about that particular race. Outside of the political race subject does not appear to receive significant coverage from tertiary reliable sources to indicate subject is notable per WP:GNG, WP:SOLDIER, or WP:NPOL.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:48, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per MelanieN. Yes, she's done a lot - but is it worthy of a place in an encyclopaedia? Would an article have been even thought of about her if she hadn't been standing for parliament? Probably not. Yes, I'm cynical. But I've seen a lot of articles like this that only surface around the time of an election. Peridon (talk) 19:15, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Obvious WP:COI, and copyvio/close-paraphrased from here. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:08, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 22:04, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Commment Actually, WP:GNG doesn't mention local media at all. JTdale ^Talk 04:47, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was REDIRECT to Vlad Yudin until such time as the topic meets WP:NF. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:26, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Catskill Park (film)[edit]

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

No indication of notability. I couldn't find any coverage of this film in independent reliable sources other than IMDB. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 19:16, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Vlad Yudin. If/when this releases and gains more coverage, we can always unredirect this but at this point in time it'd just WP:TOOSOON for an entry. We don't have enough coverage to really merit an article at this point in time. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:02, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 21:58, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Vlad Yudin. I noticed a few trivial mentions, all of which seem to already be in the article, but I agree that it seems a bit too soon. Could also be userfied or moved to draft space. Surprisingly, there's no coverage at all in the usual places (Bloody Disgusting, Dread Central, Twitch Film, etc). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:53, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Vlad Yudin or possibly The Vladar Company based on a lack of substantial coverage at this time on the film. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 02:24, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. It seems unlikely that another relist would attract any more !votes. I have checked the references in the article and don't see the necessary coverage to establish notability. Randykitty (talk) 15:38, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Tanner[edit]

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

Tagged for failing WP:GNG since March 2008. Also, there are lots of tags on the article such as WP:NPOV and WP:COI. The article seems to be written like an advertisement for the person. Aerospeed (Talk) 23:21, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 00:45, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - promotional article, no real notability Gbawden (talk) 12:10, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's essentially a CV with WP:COATRACK of his "ideas" and no real claim of notability. Agricola44 (talk) 14:51, 17 October 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Keep The article was promotional and CV like, so I cut these parts out as best I could. I added a couple of source from HighBeam. He has published a couple of books with a coauthor and one received a substantial review. He does appear to the expert on digitization of ancient documents, so for that reason I believe he is notable. I am One of Many (talk) 05:47, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 21:52, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 05:19, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SoCal Coyotes[edit]

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

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 September 29. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 18:52, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:01, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:02, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:03, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:29, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Article contains largely promotional text about a minor league/semi-pro football team. Long list of references is composed of localized RS and first-party sources and other non-RS. No significant coverage in WP:RS outside the Palm Springs area, even in other parts of Southern California. Las Vegas RS is more about Mouse Davis personally than about the team. Koumz (talk) 18:27, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Notability is established WP:GNG by widespread, reliable notable coverage WP:SIGCOV in Las Vegas Review Journal, including Page One photo, referenced SoCal Coyotes in another state as early as 2012, verifiable evidence WP:NRV that Mouse Davis was involved in the foundation of the organization. Gagliardi89 (talk) 21:51, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Notability is established WP:GNG via multiple examples of verifiable WP:NRV third-party, independent, widespread coverage WP:SIGCOV from the Pulitzer-Prize winning Press-Enterprise, the primary newspaper for Riverside County, with heavy penetration into neighboring San Bernardino County. The geographic circulation area of the newspaper spans from the border of Orange County, California to the west, east to the Coachella Valley, north to the San Bernardino Mountains, and south to the San Diego County line.Gagliardi89 (talk) 02:24, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment.The article and subject meets applicable notability guidelines for sports teams WP:NSPORTS and organizations WP:ORG via significant national and international following and significant weekly coverage from multiple, independent, reliable sources. List of references includes multiple third-party RS. Team is recognized by third-party sources as a developmental program, and is not a semi-pro team. Numerous players and coaches in article have appeared in at least one regular season or post season game in any one of the following professional leagues: the Arena Football League, the Canadian Football League, the National Football League and other top-level professional leagues, meeting notable criterion as defined in WP:NGRIDIRON. There is also significant interest in players of notability arising from their college football days WP:NGRIDIRON. Gagliardi89 (talk) 14:56, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Organization notability must be determined in its own right and cannot be inherited from the notability of players associated with it. If the Coyotes really are notable nationally and internationally, why no coverage from Southern California's major national newspaper (located only 100 miles away), the Los Angeles Times? Koumz (talk) 13:22, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The organization is notable in its own right as a developmental minor-league sports team, which makes relevant its association and advancement of players and coaches to and from prominent leagues and colleges defined in WP:NGRIDIRON, as well as the significant interest in players of notability arising from college WP:NGRIDIRON. Second, that is a subjective question for the Los Angeles Times, whose coverage -- also subjective -- does not include minor-league or developmental teams, or hundreds of notable non-sporting organizations. If notability were determined only by coverage from a single major-market newspaper within a 100-mile radius, Wikipedia would have to banish most notable minor-league baseball teams, numerous notable minor-league football teams, and even some notable tier-1 Arena teams. Aside from football, the Coyotes are a non-profit sports leadership organization, recognized by mainstream educators and national periodicals for its curriculum and work within public schools. As a sports team, as with minor league baseball, the Coyotes have a national and international following for its developing players. News organizations in Sydney, Australia, home of ProKick Australia, which places state-side players, follow the organization via NBC-CBS affiliate KXPS sports radio, which broadcasts games. National coverage includes Bleacher Report and other periodicals. Within 100 miles, the Coyotes coverage includes notable print sources such as the Gannett Company's The Desert Sun; the Coachella Valley Weekly, and Press-Enterprise, mainstream television network media affiliates KMIR-NBC, KESQ-ABC, and NBC-CBS affiliate KXPS sports Radio. Gagliardi89 (talk) 18:13, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The applicable notability guideline for sports teams is not WP:NSPORTS, but WP:ORG, which includes all types or organizations, including corporations and other types of businesses as well as sports teams. At its core, the WP:ORG standard is very similar to the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG, in that it requires significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources to demonstrate the notability of a team or other organization. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:13, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article and subject meets general notability guidlines WP:GNG and applicable notability guidelines for sports teams WP:NSPORTS and organizations WP:ORG in that it has significant national and international coverage WP:SIGCOV and receives verifiable WP:NRV weekly coverage from multiple, independent, reliable sources . Gagliardi89 (talk) 14:56, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- If the Coyotes really are notable nationally and internationally, why no coverage from Southern California's major national newspaper (located only 100 miles away), the Los Angeles Times? Koumz (talk) 13:22, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment That is a subjective question for the Los Angeles Times, whose coverage -- also subjective -- does not include minor-league or developmental teams, or hundreds of notable non-sporting organizations. If notability were determined only by coverage from a single major-market newspaper within a 100-mile radius, Wikipedia would have to banish most notable minor-league baseball teams, numerous notable minor-league football teams, and even some notable tier-1 Arena teams. Aside from football, the Coyotes are a non-profit sports leadership organization, recognized by mainstream educators and national periodicals for its curriculum and work within public schools. As a sports team, as with minor league baseball, the Coyotes have a national and international following for its developing players. News organizations in Sydney, Australia, home of ProKick Australia, which places state-side players, follow the organization via NBC-CBS affiliate KXPS sports radio, which broadcasts games. National coverage includes Bleacher Report and other periodicals. Within 100 miles, the Coyotes coverage includes notable print sources such as the Gannett Company's The Desert Sun; the Coachella Valley Weekly, and Press-Enterprise, mainstream television network media affiliates KMIR-NBC, KESQ-ABC, and NBC-CBS affiliate KXPS sports Radio. Gagliardi89 (talk) 18:13, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Bleacher Report articles are written by the team's coach, David Miller. Not exactly an independent source. Nothing on the Football Educator website suggests that it is anything other than Ted Sundquist's personal website, however knowledgeable about football he may be.Koumz(talk) 19:55, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Bleacher Report remains significant coverage WP:SIGCOV from a reliable Time-Warner-owned respected and notable national news source WP:GNG, Wiki-worthy and used as a verifiable source WP:NRV by numerous WP articles. Its published stories must meet strict factual editing and content guidelines. The Football Educator is significant coverage WP:SIGCOV from the corporate site of Ted Sundquist, a notable and Wiki-worthy national football authority, and an independent, third-party, peer-review source WP:NRV. The fact that NFL scouts alerted the Denver-based Sundquist (outside of Palm Springs or Southern California) WP:SIGCOV to the Coyote developmental program speaks to the national interest in the team. A barometer of notability is when people like Sundquist, independent of the subject itself, then actually consider the subject notable enough that they have written and published works that focus upon it. In this case, Sundquist, a two-time Super Bowl winner with the Denver Broncos, staked his reputation on his findings. The Coyotes have no other connection to Sundquist or his organization.Gagliardi89 (talk) 03:23, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Response If Bleacher Report really does have "strict guidelines", why did it allow Coach Miller to report on himself [5] (speaking in the third person as if he were an independent reporter rather than in the first person as would be correct if he were openly giving his opinion and claiming it as his opinion)? This is an obvious conflict of interest and violates one of the most fundamental principles of journalism, and the tone of Coach Miller's articles clearly promotes himself and all others mentioned in them. The Football Educator article also notes that Coyotes GM Sam Maggio was involved in editing the article, which call into question the independence of that article. Koumz (talk) 14:57, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Response The Coyotes (according to website point-of-contact Maggio) were asked to fact-check team statistics and provide supporting white paper documentation to Sundquist's staff upon request -- Coyote curriculum, for instance, that they use in public schools. Bottom line, the Bleacher Report article contained enough noteworthy documentation to meet editorial criteria. Let's stay on point here: The facts remain that a developmental football leadership organization used all of its professional resources to mature an obscure quarterback and earn him a shot with a tier-one Arena Football team, which culminated with the three-time world champion San Jose Sabercats signing him to a professional contract. Subjective issues with 'tone' and criteria and guidelines of the editors of Bleacher Report should be addressed to their editorial board. 20:37, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Bleacher Report citation removed and replaced with a third-party reliable source.Gagliardi89 (talk) 07:56, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article has been reformatted to make it fit a neutral encyclopedic tone. To date, article continues to be developed and improved, but should not be deleted. Gagliardi89 (talk) 18:13, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The language of the article is still not fully neutral. Your statement that it is calls into question your understanding of neutral tone. Koumz (talk) 19:55, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Editing continues to improve the page, and any page that improves should not be deleted. The article continues to be developed and improved. It meets notability guidelines WP:GNG with verifiable sources WP:NRV of independent coverage WP:SIGCOV. Gagliardi89 (talk) 03:23, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article fails to establish notability. Has existed for months, and while it contains numerous citations, almost all of them are not to reliable sources, and especially not independent reliable sources - their own website makes up about half the cites, with other cites being non-reliable sources like YouTube, Ebay, Amazon, ZoomInfo, Facebook, ect. I'm not seeing evidence of widespread coverage in reliable sources, here, or even very many reliable sources at all. Titanium Dragon (talk) 08:27, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The article, which has been previously edited and improved by WP administrators, establishes notability with widespread significant coverage WP:SIGCOV of verifiable WP:NRV reliable sources WP:GNG that are two-thirds of those cited. These include significant national publications WP:SIGCOV that demonstrate the coach is not only a published author who has worked, and co-authored mainstream books, with top-tier NFL and NCAA professional coaches, but also utilizes their knowledge and relationships in the growth of the Coyote organization and the development of its players. Verifiable independent sources WP:NRV include ISBN titles of the actual books, their notable national publishers, which include MacMillan Publishers, Skyhorse Publishing, Bess Press, and the role of co-authors -- June Jones, Mouse Davis, Jerry Glanville -- within the Coyote organization.Gagliardi89 (talk) 20:37, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sources added to demonstrate WP:SIGCOV ongoing widespread coverage from mainstream television network media affiliates KMIR-NBC and KESQ-ABC as another example of notability WP:GNG. Aside from football, the Coyotes are a notable non-profit sports leadership organization, recognized by mainstream educators and national periodicals for its curriculum and work within public schools. As a sports team, as with minor league baseball, the Coyotes have a national and international following for its developing players. News organizations WP:SIGCOV in Sydney, Australia, home of ProKick Australia, which places state-side players with the Coyotes, follow the organization via NBC-CBS affiliate KXPS sports radio, which broadcasts games. National coverage includes Bleacher Report and other periodicals. Within 100 miles, the Coyotes WP:SIGCOV coverage includes verifiable evidence WP:NRV of reliable notable print sources such as WP:SIGCOV the Gannett Company's The Desert Sun; the Coachella Valley Weekly, and Press-Enterprise, reliable mainstream television network media affiliates KMIR-NBC, KESQ-ABC, and reliable NBC-CBS affiliate KXPS sports Radio. A barometer of notability is when people like Sundquist, independent of the subject itself, then actually consider the subject notable enough that they have written and published works that focus upon it. In this case, Sundquist, a two-time Super Bowl winner with the Denver Broncos, staked his reputation on his findings. Gagliardi89 (talk) 20:37, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Article contains verifiable evidence WP:NRV of WP:GNG independent, notable third-party widespread coverage from the WP:SIGCOV Pulitzer-Prize winning Press-Enterprise, the primary newspaper for Riverside County, with heavy penetration into neighboring San Bernardino County. The geographic circulation area of the newspaper spans from the border of Orange County, California to the west, east to the Coachella Valley, north to the San Bernardino Mountains, and south to the San Diego County line.Gagliardi89 (talk) 00:40, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Added WP:GNG additional independent, reliable, notable widespread coverage sources WP:SIGCOV such as Honolulu Star Advertiser, and Hawaii 24/7 to demonstrate verifiable evidence of coverage WP:NRV of current players (kicker Dan Kelly) and role of team contributors and published works (Jones-Miller).Gagliardi89 (talk) 12:43, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Successfully de-orphaned with links to other pages. Gagliardi89 (talk) 21:51, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Additional verifiable objective edvidence WP:NRV with WP:GNG third-party widespread coverage WP:SIGCOV from Procanes.com, a reliable, independent source for news about University of Miami athletes. Procanes.com reported on the Coyote organization and signing of former Hurricane.Gagliardi89 (talk) 22:10, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Procanes.com, which may or may not be a reliable source, did not report on anything, it simply reposted an article from the Taft Midway Driller newspaper of Taft, California. The Midway Driller article WAS WRITTEN BY THE SoCal Coyotes (as noted on the Midway Driller website)! User:Gagliardi89's statement that this is independently-generated material about the Coyotes, regardless of who republishes it, is SIMPLY NOT TRUE. This is the second time this user has claimed articles generated by the Coyotes or their coach, J. David Miller, to be independent when they are not. User:Gagliardi89's ability to judge the independence of content SOURCES (not just wherever they might happen to be published or reposted, but who actually WROTE them) is clearly in question. Koumz (talk) 19:17, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Procanes.com citation removed, and replaced with additional third-party reliable sources of significant coverage.Gagliardi89 (talk) 07:56, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Article relies primarily on reliable, third-party, published sources.Gagliardi89 (talk) 21:15, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article establishes notability WP:GNG, has received and continues to receive significant coverage with WP:NRV verifiable objective evidence WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Numerous reliable sources and significant coverage WP:SIGCOV is demonstrated outside Palm Springs area, across Southern California, to Florida, to Nevada, to Hawaii, to Australia, and addresses the topic directly and in detail. Significant coverage is not a trivial mention. Reliable sources include editorial integrity, such as Pulitzer-prize-winning news agencies, published books and mainstream television news networks, which meets verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources encompass published works in all forms and media. There is also demonstration of secondary sources covering the subject, another good test for notability. There are numerous sources independent of the subject. Article establishes notability WP:GNG, has received and continues to receive significant coverage with WP:NRV verifiable objective evidence WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.Gagliardi89 (talk) 11:48, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See above about this user's understanding of independence of sources. Koumz (talk) 19:17, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Article relies primarily on reliable, third-party, published and broadcast sources.Gagliardi89 (talk) 21:15, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Article establishes notability WP:GNG, and contains verifiable evidence WP:NRV of notable third-party widespread coverage from the INDEPENDENT WP:SIGCOV Pulitzer-Prize winning Press-Enterprise, the primary newspaper for Riverside County, with heavy penetration into neighboring San Bernardino County. The geographic circulation area of the newspaper spans from the border of Orange County, California to the west, east to the Coachella Valley, north to the San Bernardino Mountains, and south to the San Diego County line. Article contains verifiable evidence WP:NRV of WP:GNG independent, notable third-party widespread coverage, including the INDEPENDENT WP:SIGCOV Desert Sun and Anza Valley Outlook. Article contains verifiable evidence WP:NRV of WP:GNG independent, notable third-party widespread coverage from the INDEPENDENT WP:SIGCOV network television affiliates NBC-KMIR, ABC-KESQ. Reliable sources include editorial integrity, such as Pulitzer-prize-winning news agencies and mainstream television news networks.Gagliardi89 (talk) 21:07, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Independent, widespread, notable, reliable, verifiable widespread coverage is current to October 14, 2014, with continued coverage on the Coyotes from NBC affiliate KMIR. Article continues to rely primarily on reliable, third-party, published and broadcast sources. Gagliardi89 (talk) 20:38, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:40, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ -- Article meets notability guidelines with verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources. The evidence shows the topic has gained significant independent coverage and recognition since 2012. Sources of evidence include recognized publications, credible and authoritative books, reputable media sources, and other reliable sources. Article establishes notability WP:GNG, and contains verifiable evidence WP:NRV of notable third-party widespread coverage from the INDEPENDENT WP:SIGCOV Pulitzer-Prize winning Press-Enterprise, the primary newspaper for Riverside County, with heavy penetration into neighboring San Bernardino County. The geographic circulation area of the newspaper spans from the border of Orange County, California to the west, east to the Coachella Valley, north to the San Bernardino Mountains, and south to the San Diego County line. Article contains verifiable evidence WP:NRV of WP:GNG independent, notable third-party widespread coverage, including the INDEPENDENT WP:SIGCOV Desert Sun and Anza Valley Outlook. Article contains verifiable evidence WP:NRV of WP:GNG independent, notable third-party widespread coverage from the INDEPENDENT WP:SIGCOV network television affiliates NBC-KMIR, ABC-KESQ and CBS-NBC Sports Radio affiliate KXPS Team 1010. Reliable sources include editorial integrity, such as Pulitzer-prize-winning news agencies and mainstream television news networks. Per WP:GNG, significant coverage in independent sources makes deletion due to lack of notability inappropriate. Article continues to improve, has eliminated questionable sources and now pursuant to WP:GNG relies primarily on reliable, third-party, published and broadcast sources.Gagliardi89 (talk) 22:43, 15 October 2014 (UTC) Struck Gagliard89's second "keep" !vote; you only get to !vote once in any given AfD. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:14, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Rarely, if ever, have I seen an AfD that was a bigger mess than this one. The author (and sole substantive discussion participant) has created a nearly impenetrable wall of repetitive commentary above, and has done his article, this AfD, and other editors a disservice by doing so. It's a mess, and it's apparent from the lack of commentary that everyone, including all of the regular participants in American football-related AfD discussions, is shying away from this AfD because of the required effort to wade through the volume of accumulated material. Rather than relist this article again in a week, I am going to request that editors who are regular members of WP:CFB and WP:NFL focus on this AfD and come to a decision based on WP:ORG and WP:GNG. Perhaps we can find some way to divvy up the necessary homework to make a sensible recommendation to keep it or delete it, but this has gone on long enough. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:14, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Pare article to an appropriate length and reassess deletion. To my eyes a large part of the problem is that any actual notability that the subject team may possess is completely overwhelmed by the relentless promotional tone and inclusion of even the most obscure details in the team's history. Probably the article can be reduced to three or four main points - 1) successful team; 2) "spiritual as well as physical growth"; 3) lots of historical connections to Mouse Davis and - well, maybe only three things. The point is that the team may, in fact, be notable for a couple of things, but it's almost impossible to see through the cruft and clutter to appreciate what that might be. The article as it stands is a mess. If it were a taut, clean article saying what the team is, and why it's notable, with maybe a few sentences about its greatest successes (or worst failures, I dunno) - I think its chances of surviving the AfD would be a lot better. I've taken a few sharp stabs at reducing the article to manageable size and invite other editors to do the same, so that the AfD can go forward with the real issues clear to all. JohnInDC (talk) 03:22, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, regardless of issues with the article or the actions of the article's author, subject receives plenty of significant coverage for tertiary sources, however all the sources appear to be local to the region where the subject is active in. While it can be argued that this meets WP:GNG, there are more stringent criteria that the subject falls under WP:NGRIDIRON & WP:ORG. When looking at this, the subject does not appear to pass WP:AUD; therefore, failing that more stringent guideline, I cannot support keeping this article until that is found published by a non-local source.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:41, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice. On its face, it appears that the subject of the article may have enough reliable sources to attest to its notability under the GNG (as local as most of them may be; this is complicated by the fact that they have never shown themselves to be able to even hold a steady long-term relationship with any league, so opposing cities' news sources aren't available). However, the tone of the article is far too grossly promotional, and the author's work reeks of that of someone with a conflict of interest (whether or not the user actually has one is another question altogether). If a user believes they can take on the gargantuan task of totally rewriting this article, neutralizing its tone, and paring out the promotional content and dubious claims about its stature in the professional football scene, then they should transfer the article to userspace so that the sources can be preserved. Otherwise, this article reads like borderline spam. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 00:01, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional comment: The particular issue I see here is the use of "peacock terms;" namely, the persistent and pervasive insistence on referring to the team as "AAA." That is a dubious analogy, since professional football does not have the same pyramid structure that is present in minor league baseball or hockey. The Coyotes are not affiliated with the NFL or any other verifiably professional league, nor are any other members of the various leagues in which it has played. If it is truly "AAA," by any standard, then what constitutes the "AA" league or team? The "A" league or team? Lastly, how does the Coyotes prove convincingly that it truly ranks higher than any such team that would be "AA" or "A?" (Perhaps it's simply sponsored by the American Automobile Association—I kid.) The sources mentioned in the article do nothing to support the "AAA" description. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 00:11, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of reliable sources have been listed within the article. Any issues such as a conflict of interest can be fixed by other editors (assuming the editor has one). Its not borderline spam though. All the claims, however much POV exists, are still referenced. Sure POV can be toned down, but that doesn't warrant deleting the article. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 00:25, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Biblio worm 01:14, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 03:44, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Sunflower League football season[edit]

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

Little notability, excess detail, no references. This article has been on the wiki for too long. --Prisencolinensinainciusol (talk) 21:05, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisting comment: This nomination was not created properly. Listing on daily log for the first time.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Finngall ^talk 04:59, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non notable high school league Gbawden (talk) 11:26, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dennis - 2¢ 21:26, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable. Kante4 (talk) 19:33, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable season of a non-notable high school sports conference; lacks significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources per WP:ORG and WP:GNG. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:16, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The league, and this season, do not seem to be notable. There are also no WP:RS that establish notability. --Jersey92 (talk) 03:27, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 22:36, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oni Chichi[edit]

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

Non-notable pornographic video game. Only sources are to a retailer and some sort of IMDB type site. No coverage otherwise in reliable sources. Ponjuseme (talk) 04:18, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, searching Oni Chichi or 鬼父 on Google returns no reliable sources. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 11:30, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dennis - 2¢ 21:25, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no indication of notability, and no reliable, independent sources. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 21:42, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:18, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clarence Elkins[edit]

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

This article meets notability guidelines and I believe other wikipedia guidelines, however, the subject of the article has asked for the article to be deleted. The person who asked for the article to be deleted was the one who submitted the photo, so I believe it to be a legitimate request. On the talk page he posted:

"My name is Clarence Elkins Sr. I created this page and felt safe putting my information on the web. Since I created the page I have felt much stress & threatened from people trying to get in touch for all the wrong reasons due to my Wikipedia page. I've had enough stress in my life and I am asking you to please remove this page ASAP"

I'm not sure how these issues are typically handled, so I felt a discussion here would be the best solution. I am a major editor for the article and I feel it's an important topic and would wholeheartedly support keeping the article if it was at AFD, however, I also don't want the page to cause anyone any trouble. So, this is the issue at hand. Bali88 (talk) 21:15, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:01, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:01, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Elkins is notable and chose to remain a public figure after his release from prison. Commendably, he lobbied hard for changes to Ohio criminal law, spoke publicly about his ordeal, and donated funds for a college scholarship named after him. He is the subject of a documentary film and there are many articles about him readily available online. I see no good argument for deleting our article about him. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:46, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Comemitmier (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:06, 26 Octoberr 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The large majority of this content appears to focus on the event, rather than the subject's efforts in the reform of criminal law. Would this not warrant a reworking of the article as Murder of Judy Johnson as is typically done with such articles? -Location (talk) 20:55, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply That is a possible approach, but the only thing that makes that murder notable is the false conviction and imprisonment of Clarence Elkins. I believe that he is the primary topic. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:19, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The murder itself is not notable. Also, if he's being contacted because of the article, that won't help things. That's the main issue: whether we should delete the article because the subject requests it. I feel for the guy. I really do. He's been to hell and back and I hate to think he's being harassed because of this. I brought the article up to Wikipedia standards to help make sure his story got the proper recognition, If the article is having a detrimental effect on the subject, we should consider whether the article is that important. Bali88 (talk) 05:06, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Elkins needs to verify his identity through WP:OTRS and give us a much clearer and more detailed explanation of why this Wikipedia article in particular is causing him problems. Anyone hostile Googling him will find an abundance of other information even if we delete our article. What, precisely, is the problem here, Bali88? I consider the request to delete implausible at this time. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:17, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wish I knew. I am not in contact with Elkins and do not know him personally. Personally, I think it's a legitimate request from him directly based on the fact that the same account that posted the photo (which was named something along the lines of "mom and Clarence") was the one that posted the request. I invited that poster to comment here at AFD, but I have no idea how often they check back or how familiar they are with wikipedia. In normal circumstances, I'd attempt to reach out elsewhere (facebook group, charitable foundation) but because he is specifically complaining about being contacted, I'll abstain. Personally, I feel like all of this information was found in news reports, not through original research, background check, etc, so whoever wants to get information about him can do the same. But I do feel bad for the guy. Bali88 (talk) 17:29, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - if we star to delete articles per request we will soon see big stars contacting Wikipedia to remove them. Like lets say Tom Hanks or whoever. No Wikipedia should not censor notable articles, like this one.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:35, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm a bit baffled by the request. The story is all over the Internet and the article appears to be written neutrally. It's important and notable, so there is no policy basis for deleting it.I am One of Many (talk) 00:22, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 05:21, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lia Szepes[edit]

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

Originally a WP:PROD but thought I'd bring it here for additional views. A 1930s Hungarian actress who was the female lead in several films, and may possibly satisfy #1 of the entertainer guideline. On the other hand, largely unsourced so may simply fail WP:GNG, noting that sources on pre-War Hungarian cinema are most likely in hard copy and a little hard to find. Views welcome either way. -- Euryalus (talk) 20:57, 24 October 2014 (UTC) Euryalus (talk) 20:57, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A difficult article, there is going to be very little on the net and even less in English. However I did find a source in the New York Times confirming her role in Marika, see here. JTdale ^Talk 05:10, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:01, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:01, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment [see vote, below]. I hope someone had more luck than I. Other than tantalizingly very brief mentions in several books[6][7][8] (which seem to confirm her roles in Modern Girls and Mother), I found nothing reliable. One link [9] leads to what appears to be something like IMDb. Translate the text with Google, and it says that Szepes was in only three films "...because since 1940 it banned the act (had some Jewish ancestry)" and "In 1948, she left Hungary and allegedly went to Australia, where after it lost track." If she had major roles in some notable films, that might do the trick, but it appears that the three films she was in currently lack proof of notability (even though they have blue links). I have the bad feeling that there's probably enough to show the films have notability - somewhere - but that I'm never going to find it. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 06:34, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to mention -- I didn't find an article in the Hungarian Wikipedia, so no sources there.--Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 06:41, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

* Another vague mention here; [10] but I searched TROVE and the British Newspaper Archives, neither have any mention of her. JTdale ^Talk 10:19, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In the Hungarian Performing Arts Encyclopedia there's a very short article about her [11]. It mostly confirms what that "imdb like" article stated (in which theatre she played, what her bigger roles were, the emigration to Australia). There's also a thread about her in a Hungarian theatre portal, which is like a forum so it's rather unreliable according to the terms of Wikipedia, but there they confirm that she had only these 3 movies, and they mention that one had a talk with her cousin who told since she moved to Australia they don't know what's going on with her. Would be a really hard nut to write a real article I think. Thehoboclown (talk) 13:51, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. See my comment section, above. I feel a little bad about this one, but as near as I can tell, Lia Szepes was in three films, none of which have demonstrated notability (despite having articles). If I felt confident that there were reliable paper sources somewhere that had in depth coverage/reviews, I'd be inclined to remain neutral. However, it's beginning to seem that she was an actress for a brief time, and never managed to achieve notability. C'mon, you Hungarian film lovers, prove me wrong. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 21:28, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of meeting WP:ENTERTAINER. Maybe there's something out there, somewhere, that demonstrates notability in relation to our guidelines, but we can't base notability off of theoretical sources, and the commendable efforts of people here to uncover sources lend further credence to the idea that there just might not be anything to be found. Canadian Paul 16:37, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Questions about the scope and formatting of this article/dab page should be resolved on its talk page. Deor (talk) 09:30, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish seminary[edit]

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

This, as it is since long time, should be a Wictionary item. If not, should be written in detail and in encyclopedic language and style to "become" a Wikipedia article. Therefore I suggest its deletion either for RD to the dictionary or per WP:TNT. Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 20:07, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Yeshiva --Lfrankblam 20:41, 24 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lfrankbalm (talk • contribs)
Redirect to Yeshiva. This is subset of the suggested target. It is a likely notable topic but there is no evidence yet that it will support a standalone article. The better approach is to create a useful redirect to a page where it can be read in a broader context. The Whispering Wind (talk) 02:57, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:02, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:02, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As much as I see the point, but a seminary can be for boys or for girls, while yeshiva is only for boys. Therefore, a redirect to yeshiva is out of the question. This should be kept, as a disambiguation page. I'll add the template to the page. Debresser (talk) 15:53, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

-Had not considered this point which is quite valid; suggestion would be to add a link from Yeshiva to Bais_Yaakov to show there is a distinction, to have a disambiguation page for this purpose seems superfluous. --Lfrankbalm (talk) 03:23, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Yeshiva per WP:TWODABS and WP:DABCONCEPT. Disambiguation pages are navigational devices, and should not exist if the navigational function can be accomplished in a hatnote, which is why disambiguation pages with only two article links are discouraged. In this case, Yeshiva is the topic that would have the greatest long-term historical significance, and any ambiguity can be resolved with a redirect to Yeshiva and a hatnote indicating the existence of Bais Yaakov. Note that WP:DABMENTION requires that a topic be at least mentioned in the target article. Unless there is a source saying that Bais Yaakov is also known as "Jewish Seminary", this line will be removed in accordance with WP:MOSDAB. bd2412 T 00:39, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The term "seminary" in this context is used for two entirely different purposes, and that's what this article is needed to do. Seminary and Yeshiva are not synonyms. Alansohn (talk) 02:14, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- It's still a WP:TWODABS situation, and with one of the terms on the page failing WP:DABMENTION. Unless there is a source describing Bais Yaakov as a "Jewish Seminary", it's original research to have it on this page. bd2412 T 02:47, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - @BD2412: FYI: See these WP articles (my underlines): 1 "A midrasha (Hebrew: מדרשה, pl. midrashot/s) refers to an institute of Jewish studies for women. In Israel, it is often an Orthodox institution that caters solely to women, and roughly the equivalent of a yeshiva for men. The term is often translated as 'seminary'. In the United States, the term has also been used to refer to co-educational Jewish studies programs..." 2 "Machon Gold was an Orthodox Jewish girl's seminary founded in 1958 by the Torah Education Department of the World Zionist Organization and named after Rabbi Wolf Gold, one of the signatories of the Israeli declaration of independence..." 3 "Midreshet Moriah is a Zionist-Orthodox Jewish seminary[1] in Bayit Vagan, Jerusalem, Israel..." 4 "Midreshet HaRova (Hebrew: מדרשת הרובע‎) is a Religious Zionist Jewish seminary located in the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem's Old City..." and many others like that. Thank you, IZAK (talk)
Keep because 1 it's a complex term that at times refers to: (i) only all-male-schools, (ii) all female schools, or (iii) co-ed schools, and (iv) sometimes for all three. 2 Thus it does NOT only refer to a "yeshiva" which is basically for males only, but 3 this English language term can and does refer to schools for Jewish females, 4 as well as to non-Orthodox co-ed institutions such as the Conservative Judaism elite school the Jewish Theological Seminary of America 5 as well as to the elite all-male school of Modern Orthodox Judaism the Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary, and many other types and varieties as its parent category at Category:Jewish seminaries reveals. 6 Thus, this is NOT just a case of "definitions" but how one term is applied for multiple purposes by various groups. 7 At this stage this article is only a WP:STUB and needs to be built up per WP:CHANCE & WP:DONOTDEMOLISH & WP:EXPERT. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 05:05, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This could be both a disambiguation style or an article on the various institutions for higher Jewish learning. The word has a number of meanings depending on which modern-day branch of Judaism one asks. Even within Orthodoxy, the name "seminary" may refer to a yeshiva, a college for girls, and even a rabbinical training school (see Hildesheimer Rabbinical Seminary). JFW | T@lk 07:13, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Per WP:DABCONCEPT, if it is capable of being an article, please write the article. Otherwise, we are wasting an opportunity to explain this very distinction. bd2412 T 15:48, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is not an article, it is a disambiguation page. Always was, just that nobody marked it as such. Debresser (talk) 19:04, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - I removed the disambiguation tag per WP:DABCONCEPT, because the uses of the term are not unrelated (in the sense that the planet "Mercury" and the car brand "Mercury" are unrelated). It is a misunderstanding of the navigational purpose of disambiguation pages to mark as ambiguous topics that are capable of being discussed in terms of their relationship, as the above vote actually does. bd2412 T 20:27, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as User:Jfdwolff and IZAK explained. --Yoavd (talk) 09:00, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The page as currently formulated is not a disambiguation page and should not be tagged as such. Whether a concept article can be written on the subject remains to be seen, but if there is no substantive changes to this, it should be deleted. older ≠ wiser 23:41, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Comment: Much of the contention, including the nomination rationale and the disagreement between Debresser and BD2412, seems to be about format. So, is this a dictionary definition? Yes, but perhaps not insuperably so. At present the content is basically a definition and two synonyms. But as IZAK points out, the concept is a bit complicated, so it might be advisable to write a broad-concept article, as BD2412 suggests. Is it a DAB page? No. DAB pages have a specific function as simple navigation aids leading to articles and a specific format, described at MOS:DAB. This page fails on both counts. As Alan Sohn and IZAK point out, there may be a need for disambiguation, as "Jewish seminar" can refer to Yeshiva, Midrasha, and possibly Bais Yaakov. Three or more articles require a DAB page; two articles could be disambiguated with hatnotes, but there is no hard and fast rule against a two-item DAB page when neither of the linked articles is the primary topic. Should the article be deleted? It might not be necessary as a navigation aid, and its possible the broad concept article will never be written, but given the uncertainty, I would default to keep. But remove the {{disambiguation}} template, since the page is not a DAB page as such. Cnilep (talk) 00:10, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree with User Cnilep (talk · contribs), who puts it very well. IZAK (talk) 05:42, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I also agree with Cnilep's proposal, particularly to the extent that with the disambiguation tag removed, other materials can be included in the page, which some editors seem to prefer having there. bd2412 T 20:58, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as disambiguation or redirect, who cares? --NE2 02:48, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Debresser. They're not the same animal. Epeefleche (talk) 05:06, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - as others have implied this page is neither one thing or another at present but it clearly has some utility. The page needs sorting out but AFD is not cleanup and, on balance, keeping seems the best option at present. The Whispering Wind (talk) 02:26, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Objecting to a page that makes a useful and accurate navigational distinction because of a technical violation of MOS that is needed for clarity is not a reasonable way to use the MOS. The basic principle is NOT BURO: we can do whatever is helpful to the intended purpose, making whatever exceptions to guidelines fits the situation. DGG ( talk ) 01:45, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:25, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aquaphor[edit]

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

Unable to determine how this product is notable. There are dozens of petroleum jelly products, and this one does not appear to stand out from the rest. Primefac (talk) 19:42, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Aquaphor is a big company. It may not be a super exciting product, but I think it meets notability guidelines. Bali88 (talk) 21:37, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Unsure - Being 'big' means nothing if there aren't any references. That said I found This om the Cosmopolitan, LA Times and even an Academic article on the effects of Aquaphor on Infants. Lots of passing hits in Gbooks, not all useful though. JTdale ^Talk 05:19, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:29, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:29, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I was contacted off-wiki by the author of the article, Caroline Nmann, to give her some input on how this article might fit into Wikipedia. I do see potential for having a neutral and well-sourced article, and I would support her in that process. I find it somewhat disingenious if user A empties the article of most content first, with user B then putting it up for deletion, claiming it lacks notability. This is a brand established in 1925, it has (like some other German brands like Aspirin#Trademark) an interesting history in war time, and it is listed 62 times in PubMed in various treatment studies for skin diseases, post-operative care, and infant care. Regardless of revenue, the last point would indicate notability at least to dermatologists. --Minderbinder-de (talk) 16:53, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Minderbinder-de, I did not realise the page had been edited so recently before I sent it to AfD. Looking at what was removed, though, I completely agree with the editor who did the removal - the content was unsourced and somewhat promotional. Could it potentially be added back in? Of course. However, it would need a lot more sources. Primefac (talk) 17:30, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the content was promotional, but some was not. When the brand was first registered (in 1925), by whom (Herman A. Metz), how it got transferred from a German company to Duke Laboratories and back: how is that promotional? And since when do we blanket delete in such cases, rather then tagging missing cites? Well, let this AfD run its course, and then improve the article. --Minderbinder-de (talk) 09:58, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I would advise against re-adding the material as it was rather promotional. I took the article back to a version that was before the edits of a person seemingly editing for or on behalf of the company. There can be no objection to neutral and referenced edits being made to increase the info in the article. I am inclined to support the retention of the article as it stands (or is improved, hopefully). By the way @Minderbinder-de: User:Caroline Nmann is NOT the author of the article. It was created in 2005 by User:Elysianfields who hasn't been seen since September 2014. The involvement of Caroline Nmann was only in this month. This is a very long-standing article. Peridon (talk) 19:39, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PS I hope Caroline Nmann is able to help us in achieving an improved and still neutral article. It's nice when people get the idea that we don't allow promo without making an unnecessary fuss about it as most do, and realise that having a neutral article is better than making a promo one that gets deleted. Peridon (talk) 19:47, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PPS There is no connection between me and Primefac. I removed the material after User:Jéské Couriano had tagged for speedy (spam), and declined his speedy. Had I not thought it either viable or potentially viable, I would have tagged it myself. Peridon (talk) 19:53, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 04:04, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Virginia Grande[edit]

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

No evidence of secondary notability from unaffiliated sources per WP:BIO and not meeting WP:SCHOLAR criteria. --Animalparty-- (talk) 17:34, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:32, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:32, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Far too soon. She has publications but Google scholar shows them as uncited, so she's not close to WP:PROF#C1. Her organizational work is commendable but also does not yet seem to be notable. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:40, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree, way WP:TOOSOON. Text seems crafted to strike a sympathetic chord with Wikipedians, but is not relevant to notability evaluation. Agricola44 (talk) 16:24, 27 October 2014 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The consensus is clearly to keep as a notable hoax. or parody site. DGG ( talk ) 17:08, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

National Report[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Further, currently is just a list of headlines that got picked up by other news agencies thinking they were legit or that others debunked. Only one sentence about the actual website. Page content is not actually about page title. Sources on page do not discuss the website/company itself or its notability. I think National Report is likely notable enough to have its own article, but current article needs WP:NUKEANDPAVE EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 15:26, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agree! Lets delete it!Yup69 (talk) 02:40, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it. Many don't realize it is a satire page and the Wikipedia page for it is the best place to explain that.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.96.181.137 (talk)

I think it should be kept. The article can be improved, but not deleted. People wanting to know what kind of "newspaper" it is (i.e. not one to take seriously) should know that. So, no deletion, but a complete make-over. My opinion. Jerappelle (talk) 15:58, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There has been no improvement in the article since the beginning of this year. No one is working on it. NUKEANDPAVE. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:02, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP by all means rewrite it. Martin451 22:32, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm against deleting the article. At the very least, people need to know this is a humor site, not a site for actual news. bhumburg — Preceding undated comment added 15:23, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am against deleting it also. I used Wikipedia to verify that the site was satirical. It has reach and is notable.125.237.32.170 (talk) 18:25, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How on earth does this fail GNG? Just look at the list of times it's fooled more reputable news sources, not to mention large portions of the Internet. The Banksy arrest story is trending like mad right now. If you can't load up your Facebook without seeing a prominent mention of the site's current story, it seems pretty notable to me. —Robotech_Master (talk) 19:04, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite if needed. AfD is not cleanup. Martin451 22:32, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It needs to be correctly called what it is -- a hoax site. From Wikipedia: A hoax is a deliberately fabricated falsehood made to masquerade as truth. In no way does it fall within any definition of "satire." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarahseehoward (talk • contribs) 06:24, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article should NOT be deleted. It's a public service announcement to those who mistakingly think the National Report is a legitimate news source. It is not. It is also NOT satire. It's nothing but lies and people need to have access to information so that they know this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Queenietart (talk • contribs) 15:32, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Queenietart and Sarahseehoward: Whether or not it's satire is not what's being discussed. That's currently being discussed on the article's talk page. Also, Wikipedia is not for public service announcements. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:42, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, @evergreenfir, whether or not it is satire is most certainly being discussed and it NEEDS to be. It is inherently part of any discussion on whether or not the article should be deleted. It is noteworthy and deserving of an article precisely BECAUSE it is not satire. And for goddsakes, when someone calls it a public service announcement and you aren't processing that purely as a metaphor, it should not surprise me that you continue to believe National Report is satire. @Queenietart is completely correct. These articles exist to deliver accurate and true information on something like National Report. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarahseehoward (talk • contribs) 01:23, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; meets WP:GNG. Sources about news services being fooled by the stories have a fair amount to say about the website, certainly more than the "trivial mention" low bar of GNG, and there's been a full Verge article published since this nomination, covering the National Report's misinformation over Ebola in detail. --McGeddon (talk) 10:48, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I was going to close this as keep, but then I noticed that a large majority of !voters were either new users (one has only one edit, which was to this AfD) or anons. I don't want to make any accusations (so please forgive me if I'm wrong), but I'm beginning to wonder if there's some sockpuppeting going on here... --Biblio worm 02:21, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dennis - 2¢ 17:00, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Due to what seems obvious to me is either canvassing/meatpuppetry/sockpuppetry, I've relisted this so a wider variety of editors may review, giving us a more genuine consensus view. Dennis - 2¢ 17:01, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete On the basis that that this entry is not notable but also "not suitable for an encyclopedia." There is a tendency to misuse Wikipedia as "advertising" due to the fact that entries are prioritized by the google search engine. This site falls into that category. BTW i have never seen the "National Review" prior to finding it here on the deletion page. Lfrankblam 19:54, 24 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lfrankbalm (talk • contribs)
Keep This is a well sourced article about a controversial publication. A rewrite would be nice.--Auric talk 23:22, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am for keeping the article as well, I am not logged in but i am a genuine wikipedia reader (referring to the comment made on top), and this is the first voice I tried to edit so apologies if probably it looked like suspicious. In my opinion the wikipedia voice must stay, I'll just say again what I said in the first afd: National Report had some influence over italian media where they reported the news as a true event, which I believed it too until I found this wikipedia page proving it was coming from a satirical website, and I guess that's also one of the main reason of wikipedia to exists, check if sources are reliable. The article was an indecent stub and I tried to rewrite it keeping it more consistent with the other articles on wikipedia so other might know as well as I did. Also, I partly agree labelling National Report an hoax website, some articles are too well written and too real and can believed as true, others (e.g.: Kim Jong-un being kidnapped from ISIS) are just genuine parody which can be identified as such at a first read. I think the website it's not written from a single person, therefore has different style of parody but certainly once you browse most of the articles you realise it is a parody site. No canvassing at all involved 84.252.233.186 (talk) 12:15, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This site needs to be easily recognized as a hoax site. Rewrite OK, but must be kept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheAtheistReverend (talk • contribs) 02:22, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It looks clearly notable WP:GNG to me. Here, for example, is a Reuters article on October 29, 2014 entirely about this fake news website. I am One of Many (talk) 00:31, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Deor (talk) 09:36, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Seifer[edit]

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

Seems to fail WP:BIO, WP:PROF, WP:AUTHOR. The sources are all indicative of a certain fame within insular WP:FRINGE communities, but we need more than that for a WP:FRINGEBLP. jps (talk) 14:32, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Claim to fame seems to be his autobiography on Nikola Tesla, and even that is only cited 73 times. At this time, I lean toward delete as not meeting the guidelines for inclusion for notability. User:Shoessss (talk) 16:43, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The only noteworthy thing about this individual seems to be that he wrote a book on Tesla, which, though reviewed in a few reliable sources, apparently failed to make much of an impact. This makes him non-notable as an author. His scholarly output is far too modest to meet the requirements of WP:PROF, and there is insufficient substantial coverage in multiple reliable independent sources to meet any of our notability guidelines. His notability does not extend between a tiny subset of the fringe pseudoscientific community. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:32, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep His Tesla book is well reviewed in Publishers Weekly, Booklist, Library Journal, Technology Review] Nature and Scientific American, and is widely held in libraies. He also has had a notable career in graphology, and his work has been discussed in psychology textbooks. Seems notable as an author, and his academic career enhances his notability. Edison (talk) 22:18, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, he is a bit more of a hack than a PROF, but we don't judge. He seems notable per WP:AUTHOR #1 "widely cited by peers", we don't judge the "peers" either. Sites like huffingtonpost.com do go to him[12] and he seems to get interviewed[13]. His Wikipedia entry is pretty padded and self serving so I'd vote for knocking it back to a stub until it can be supported by secondary sources. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 02:00, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We learn about his favorite series and films and there are wonderful sources like pipl.com! And then people want to delete it, now really... Seriously, I have no time looking into this to see whether there is any notability here or not, so I won"t !vote right now, but at the least this needs an axe and needs to be stubbified. --Randykitty (talk) 14:30, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -Ditto with Edison. He is a respected and notable author and handwriting analyst. Investimate (talk) 15:36, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could you perhaps enlighten us how it can be verified that he's notable? Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 16:49, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - the reviews of his work probably get him over the line but I certainly wouldn't object if someone wanted to delete this and start again or reduce it to a stub at a minimum. St★lwart¹¹¹ 00:39, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or stubify Doesn't really seem to meet author or prof where is the significant coverage on the subject in secondary reliable sources? I am not finding it. One book of some note does not rise to notability, a few quotes and interviews in low to middle quality sources does not rise to notability. What would an encyclopedia entry on the subject contain? Perhaps wrote book on Tesla then what else is really notable? What secondary source calls him "a respected and notable author and handwriting analyst"? - - MrBill3 (talk) 09:17, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dennis - 2¢ 16:24, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Vanity does not yet quality for speedy deletion; but this entry is a clear example whereby a biography goes into life details that are not relevant, even were this person notable beyond those people specifically interested in the subject matter which is really Nicholas Tesla. The Tesla biography is a clear example of a good wikipeida biography, and if Seifer was an expert on Tesla then his writings could be used as a source. Do we really need to know that Seifer was influenced by "Kukla, Fran and Ollie, Amos and Andy," when we really don't care about Siefer as a notable person! This type of biography might also be a "conflict of interest" based on the absolute minutia contained within a very verbose entry. I would suggest deleting this entry with prejudice. --Lfrankblam 20:32, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Keep He is a notable author: his book on Tesla is in over 1300 libraries, with multiple reviews, and his book on handwriting analysis in over 200 <see his author page in worldcat]-- he's worked on many other things & I see no basis for saying the article is mainly about Tesla This is a very useful example of how an article about even a notable person can be ruined by the inclusion of wildly excessive content--that should have been addressed 4 years ago when the article was submitted instead of just tinkering with details. I'm doing this right now. Sometimes it is appropriate to delete an article like this--when there is no usable content & it would require rewriting from scratch instead of mere abridgment, or where an attempt at rewriting has been resisted. But this is easily rescuable. DGG ( talk ) 17:50, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

-Article is far better than it was prior to your hard work and revisions. I don't know whether or not this person is considered notable enough to meet the requirements for inclusion. I still think that his work would be better represented as a citation in a Tesla entry, than as a stand alone article. If the article passes muster as a notable article, it is now of sufficient quality for inclusion.--Lfrankbalm (talk) 23:07, 31 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lfrankbalm (talk • contribs) [reply]

Is the contention that book on Tesla qualifies as "a significant or well-known work" and he thus satisfies AUTHOR? - - MrBill3 (talk) 03:16, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 16:30, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sonja Buholzer[edit]

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

This deletion discussion, created by Sandstein 16:21, 24 October 2014 (UTC), is a procedural recreation of a previously malformed nomination by an IP editor, who offered the following rationale:[reply]

"This bio of a living person was clearly written for the purpose of commercial self-promotion. It is not written using a Neutral Point of View, providing no substantiation for adjectives such as "bestselling" and "widely known". It meets as good as no Verifiability criteria as what few sources there are belong to local publications (all in German except for one English interview with the subject) and several of the links lead to pages that are either inexistent or expired. It also shows almost No Original Research as most of the text is not sourced and reads like a sales pitch and/or excerpts from the subject's own books. Of the two external websites provided, one is the website to the subject's personal business, the other no longer or never existed. 223.25.192.230 (talk) 14:29, 24 October 2014 (UTC)"

Delete Clearly a marketing related entry--Lfrankblam 20:37, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Delete No reliable sources, mostly focused on spamming the subjects books. Safiel (talk) 01:03, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:33, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:33, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:33, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 22:28, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Colm Kelleher[edit]

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

Not notable as a scientist, and having two published books doesn't automatically confer notability for a stand alone article. Fails WP:PROF and WP:AUTHOR.

Not to be confused with the science educator [14] or the financial executive [15] of the same name. - LuckyLouie (talk) 11:30, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Skinwalker Ranch, as writing about that seems to be the only claim to notability. Artw (talk) 17:08, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:27, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Seems to be notable and influential in the research of Interleukin 3, GM-CSF and G-CSF as they pertain to Acute myeloblastic leukemia as shown here [16]. ShoesssS ^Talk 14:10, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not convinced by the citation record pointed out by Shoessss (for one thing, several of those publications should be discounted because his name is only listed in a middle position) and there seems to be nothing else that would pass WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:38, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete There is no independent coverage of him and I don't think I see enough to show notability as a researcher (though I could be wrong). The lack of coverage is what decided my vote. 131.118.229.17 (talk) 22:04, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dennis - 2¢ 16:11, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As a research scientist the subject is not notable. It would be appropriate for his writings and papers to support other Wikiedia entries if applicable. The fact he has written papers is not in and of itself justification for a Wikipeida entry; If he had a landmark accomplishment then he would be worth of mention, ever were it of lesser importance compared with the accomplishments of Jonas Salk----Lfrankblam 21:28, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 Jamaican supercentenarians. j⚛e decker ^talk 16:30, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ida Stewart[edit]

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

This is a pending case that has yet to be verified. As age hasn't been (fully) verified, it's original research to state she was the oldest living X. Living to a certain age does not make someone notable. PROD removed by User: Old Time Music Fan without an explanation. CommanderLinx (talk) 12:12, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect – To List of Jamaican supercentenarians. ShoesssS ^Talk 18:00, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete favor of the deletion. Articles do not need to be created.--Disputed (talk) 09:20, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect – To List of Jamaican supercentenarians. It is better to redirect the article, rather than delete it.--Mirno (talk) 19:56, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dennis - 2¢ 16:08, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect – To List of Jamaican supercentenarians if the supporting primary supporting information can be verified. --Lfrankblam 20:51, 24 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lfrankbalm (talk • contribs)
Redirect – To List of Jamaican supercentenarians. If she had been the oldest Jamaican, then an article would be notable. The sources available do establish that she was a supercentenarian, so she belongs on the list. I am One of Many (talk) 00:53, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus. The different opinions range from clear keep, via merge (but no target identified), to delete. It also doesn't seem that another relist would lead to a clear consensus. The article as it stands is poorly sourced and indeed seems to contain quite a lot of OR/SYNTH, but those are problems that can be solved by editing. If, after pruning, this list is of a size that would justify merging, I would suggest military science fiction as a possible target. In any case, at this point it is clear that there is no consensus here and I am closing accordingly. Randykitty (talk) 14:59, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Supersoldiers in fiction[edit]

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

Everything in this article is based on original research or unreliable sources. We can't just make our own observations about what is and is not a fictional supersoldier, that simply is not how Wikipedia works. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:31, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wow. Original research is putting it mildly. Defining who qualifies for this list has been done almost without sources, and I find it difficult to imagine how one could ever find reliable sources for such claims. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 08:35, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article Supersoldier cleary states that a Supersoldier is "capable of operating beyond normal human limits or abilities" which meens that it meets the criteria of what a Supersoldier is. Moreover, if its defined as an original source, than why not go further and delete Flying car, Hovercar, Holography in fiction, and others, as there are no clearly referenced solid definition for these terms either. --Virtualerian (talk) 08:53, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not generally considered a valid argument for keeping. Any content which is based on users deciding for themselves which items meet certain criteria and which don't is original research. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:50, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As previously stated, there are no clearly referenced solid definitions for other science fiction elements, such as rayguns, and they still have their own lists. I think we should just rename the article to "List of fictional soldiers" (That would be similar to "list of fictional extraterrestrials", "list of fictional books" and others). I think it comprises a good list as well. --Virtualerian (talk) 00:52, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you understand my point. It isn't whether or not we have a firm definition of what a super soldier is. It is if users are using their own judgement, as opposed to reliable sources, to decide if a particular fictional soldier meets that definition. Articles on fictional topics often suffer from this misunderstanding. What is required is a reliable source for each individual entry that identifies that specific fictional soldier as a supersoldier. If we don't have that, the entry should not be on the list. If there aren't enough sources to properly verify a stand alone list article then we shouldn't have one. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:18, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Most fictional topics suffer from that indeed. I think it should renamed List of fictional soldiers in science fiction or something similar.--Virtualerian (talk) 03:37, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, but with a lot of pruning and clarification. Supersoldier presents an unsourced, ridiculously hazy definition, according to which any elite soldiers, e.g. Green Berets, SAS, Spetsnaz, would qualify. The cleanest way is to include entries whose fictional works explicitly state they are "supersoldiers". That would include Saurons, but exclude the Mobile Infantry of Starship Troopers. Clarityfiend (talk) 13:04, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's kind of my point. If we reduce this list only to what can actually be referenced, it might, maybe, contain two items. That's not enough for a list article. I've already removed a "in fiction" section from the parent article for these same reasons. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:50, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are the Saurons (and Sauron Death's Heads, who are super-duper soldiers), the Morthans of David Gerrold's Star Wolf series, and Super Soldiers, just to name a few. Enough to justify a list. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:46, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I take it that you're saying that your interpretation of these books is that these characters meet the definition of "supersoldiers" as defined in the Wikipedia article. To me, that's analysis. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 23:53, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. That is my whole point. If we are deciding for ourselves what is and is not a supersoldier, we're doing it wrong. Not one single entry has a ref that leads to a source that even uses the word "supersoldier". That means that this six-year-old article is 100% unverified. Yes, there do appear to be two refs, but one is to some sort of fan page and does not use the word "supersoldier" and the other is a webcomic that... I don't even know what it is or why anyone thought it was even relevant to this article. If there are , as has been suggested, users who are interested enough in this topic to try and find some actual sources, sources that clearly define specific entities as supersoldiers so that we aren't deciding for ourselves, I would suggest that those users either step up now and add those sources or that the article be userfied until such time as it is no longer in this unacceptable state. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. That's the exact opposite of what I said. I said the Wikipedia definition is useless. The criterion I suggested was the fictional works themselves identifying their characters as supersoldiers. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:07, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:39, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:40, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:40, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Although not a fan of "military sf" I do see that connections can be drawn from many sf sources to create an informative list such as this. But I am also aware of the need to reference secondary sources to comply with Wikipedia guidelines. Throwing out all this work seems a little radical to me when the list would be perfectly acceptable if adequate referencing was undertaken. The article has been around since 2008, and it has had 99 edits by 68 distinct users. That strikes me as indicating an acceptable level of relevance. Perry Middlemiss (talk) 23:04, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with that argument is that it implies that if enough users engage in original research that makes it ok. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:13, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A quick web search brought up this page (http://futurewarstories.blogspot.com.au/2012/09/fws-topics-super-soldiers.html) as a major essay on the subject (again unreferenced) and various other references to "DARPA's Defense Sciences Office" projects. What I was attempting to point out was that there are a number of editors who obviously believe that the topic is of interest. I think that if just a few of them took the time to add a few references to the existing page then it would quickly fulfill the referencing requirements. There are a lot of lists on Wikipedia which could be accused of being original research. Until the original editors created the pages 2013 in literature or List of religious ideas in science fiction I very much doubt there was a single source of such information anywhere on the net. So in many ways it is original research but it includes references. It may be that the editors of the page under discussion have added in more commentary on the entries in their list than is usual for lists of this sort. But again I believe this indicates an editing requirement for the page rather than a blanket deletion (see citation notification on List of religious ideas in science fiction). Perry Middlemiss (talk) 02:32, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dennis - 2¢ 16:06, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge "Super-soldiers in Fiction" fall mostly within a sub-genera of Science Fiction and as such the information contained within this entry could present in a table to those interested in the subject. Each and every entry would need to be referenced. Presently the content reads as original research and as such needs either to be firmed or deleted. Generally, it would be easier to write an article than it would be to write an article that has been properly sourced. A Wikipedia Sandbox would be a more appropriate home for this entry. ----Lfrankblam 21:30, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Forgive me, but I have to say you are kind of all over the place with this remark. You start with saying to merge without really identifying where it should be merged to, then seem to advocate outright deletion, and finally userfication. If I was closing this discussion I would have no idea how to interpret this comment. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:56, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep adequately defined and sufficiently notable. This is an appropriate encyclopedia article for WP, which has always covered science fiction in greater detail than most other subjects. I can think of not rational place where the content could be merged without creating too extensive and complicated a list. DGG ( talk ) 17:03, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. List presently meets criteria for lists of companies. (non-admin closure) I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 02:34, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of breweries in Nebraska[edit]

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

Procedural nomination SpinningSpark 14:50, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This list is one of the sub-lists of List of breweries in the United States. Most of these were nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of breweries in Connecticut. The result was snow keep. It was accepted at that AFD that notability was not a criteria for inclusion on these lists per WP:CSC and they could attempt to be comprehensive. The Nebraska article was sitting at AFC and I waited for the result of the AFD before accepting it. Since posting the article has been expanded and moved to a new title. The list part was subsequently deleted. Consequently, I restored the list part at the original title. This has been disputed so here we are. If a comprehensive list of breweries is deemed acceptable on Wikipedia then it is reasonable that the Nebraska ones should be included. SpinningSpark 15:01, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 15:35, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 15:35, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:CSC and related AFDs. VMS Mosaic (talk) 01:41, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:38, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Qualifies per WP:LISTCOMPANY and WP:CSC. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:42, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close. The issue has been dealt with given new, actually reliable references which have been added. They are not a link to a directory, so WP:NOTDIRECTORY concerns are addressed. IronGargoyle (talk) 22:19, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The original references which you removed were also reliable, inasmuch as they reliably establish existence, the membership criterion for the list. There really was no need for any of this performance. SpinningSpark 22:44, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator. SW3 5DL (talk) 13:41, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of notable Ebola patients[edit]

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

~~WP:BIO1E Also, if they've got their own articles, this looks like unnecessary duplication and essentially a WP:content fork.~~ SW3 5DL (talk) 14:48, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Revised, see comment below. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:57, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Move/Rename, but keep out the living biography information where it is an issue. Maybe just the generic statistical data about cases.Starstr (talk) 14:58, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think that this article provides some interesting starting points in the current research and discussion during the ebola crisis in West Africa. I vote to KEEP the stub class article, which deserves development, not deletion. MaynardClark (talk) 15:21, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 15:36, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand this nomination at all. How would BIO1E apply to an index of articles that share a common characteristic? If you want to try deleting an individual article on that basis, that's a completely different issue, but I've never even seen the argument that BIO1E would apply to a list like this. By its own terms it's focused on when a person should have a standalone article. So if anything, BIO1E would support a list or prose topic article instead of individual articles. I also don't understand how a list that groups articles together somehow duplicates the articles themselves; perhaps the nominator is simply unfamiliar with Wikipedia lists of any kind? Please read WP:LISTPURP and WP:CLN (comparing this list with Category:Deaths from Ebola). There may very well be an argument for deleting or (more likely) merging this list somewhere, but it hasn't been presented yet. postdlf (talk) 15:48, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks postdlf, I'll revise. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:25, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm happy to withdraw the nom if other editors feel that's best. But first, I'd like to know if in their view, this article satisfies navigation in the WP:MOS. Also, the talk page and the article edit summaries suggested to me that there was concern about the content. Specifically one editor noted that the focus on 'notable' Ebola patients, would mean that the list is out of proportion to all others with Ebola. So undue weight would apply. And finally another editor pointed out that the list is essentially covered in Template:Ebola. My concern firstly is the ‘notable’ cases are really the health care workers who’ve fallen ill. Granted, they've done God's work there, but their misfortune in contracting the virus is no greater than that of any of the thousands who've fallen ill. Perhaps what is needed is a rename, or repurpose? SW3 5DL (talk) 16:53, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no such thing as "unduly" reflecting the same focus that sources represent. UNDUE says exactly the opposite, that we should not focus on a viewpoint or aspect of a topic to an extent that reliable sources do not. That sources have described only a relative handful of individual cases in detail while merely giving statistics for the majority of victims is not something for us to ignore. See also WP:NOTDIR, which explains that while we index articles we do not repeat the phone book (in other words, we almost always keep lists limited to notable entries). Listing all the thousands of people who ever contracted Ebola (even if verifiable), rather than focusing on notable cases or at least those with some secondary source coverage, would be contra NOTDIR and indiscriminate (and arguably WP:NOTMEMORIAL). Also, your comment about the list being redundant to the template is contra WP:CLN. postdlf (talk) 17:13, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not suggesting that we list the thousands. I was simply repeating the concerns on the talk page. And I'm asking editors if the article satisfies navigation in the MOS. If so, then I'll withdraw the nom. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 17:39, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This entry does not stand by itself. The people listed are simply victims of Ebola. There are Wikipedia entries about the wider topic. --Lfrankblam 21:40, 24 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lfrankbalm (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:19, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:19, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Deor (talk) 10:03, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of miscellaneous minor planet discoverers[edit]

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

Fails WP:LISTPEOPLE by design. We cannot have lists of non-notable people. jps (talk) 14:45, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A person who discovers a big hunk of rock hurtling through our solar system is notable in my book. Certainly a lot more than the innumerable professional athletes that litter Wikipedia. I feel that regrouping the former under this list is a reasonable compromise. This kind of information is not readily available elsewhere on the Internet. Urhixidur (talk) 15:21, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS sort of argument. I'd also point to WP:IINFO. jps (talk) 16:25, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 15:36, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as meeting WP:CSC #2. However, all entries should have at least one reliable source. VMS Mosaic (talk) 02:01, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a valid criteria for living people. See WP:LISTPEOPLE. jps (talk) 02:58, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CSC #2 is explicitly limited with respect to people. Also, per Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Lists_of_people, "Inclusion within stand-alone lists should be determined by the notability criteria above." See the reference for details. If I understand things correctly, being notable for just one event may be enough, but proof of notability for that event is still required. I haven't yet checked, but unless reliable sources proving notability are found, every person in the article would have to be deleted. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 03:40, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[Oops! Sorry, jps, I had the window open for an hour, and didn't notice you had already responded. Well...I agree --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 03:43, 25 October 2014 (UTC)][reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:20, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:20, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note that WP:LISTPEOPLE and WP:CSC are co-equal on Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists. On this particular topic where the members are just as notable today (i.e., they discovered something for all time) as they will be 10 million years from now (assuming human history lasts that long), there is very little else with RS sources on Wikipedia which will still be remotely notable 10 million years from now. This may be a case where WP:IAR and WP:COMMON apply. VMS Mosaic (talk) 11:07, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; no need for such a list of minor planet discoverers. By definition, such a list is comprised solely of non-notable people, and thus fails WP:LISTPEOPLE. This list actually serves no purpose at all to readers, since the relevant information can already be found at the list of minor planets's sublists. Considering the vast number of minor planets (over 500000), creating a list of every single discoverer is next to impossible. Urhixidur, you state that somebody who discovers a minor planet is inherently notable. Why do you say this, when I could just as easily say that whoever discovers any object whatsoever is inherently notable? VMS Mosaic, the MOS entry you state says that such criteria specifically excludes living people, so that criteria is not applicable here. StringTheory11 (t • c) 18:14, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As I noted above, WP:CSC #2 is explicitly limited with respect to people. Proof of notability is required -- and it's lacking here. I didn't check List of minor planets in detail, but I suspect that StringTheory11 is correct in that all information is already covered within its sublists; if anyone sees a missing person, it could be added to that.--Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 22:32, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proof of notability is not lacking: you only need check the Minor Planet Center's lists of discovery circumstances. As for the information being recoverable from our lists of minor planets, that may be true (albeit with a fair amount of grunt work) but what about those astronomers who have also discovered supernovae (such as Masakatsu Aoki)? There does not seem to be a list of supernova discovery data on Wikipedia.

« I could just as easily say that whoever discovers any object whatsoever is inherently notable ». Not all objects are equal. Minor planets are big, move fast, and some could ruin millions of people's days. Discovering one is certainly comparable to discovering an island (back in the old days of the Age of Discovery), for one.

Anyway, what about WP:CSC as ajustification? "Every entry in the list fails the notability criteria" although the list itself is reasonably notable —seems to fit this case. Urhixidur (talk) 12:16, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not a useful list at all. Currently small, but begging to be turned into an indiscriminate list. The same information is essentially contained in the minor planet list articles. None of these people have widespread attention, even for the discoveries they have made. Amateur astronomers as a group indeed deserve credit for their work discovering transient phenomena and minor planets, but a "miscellaneous" list is sad place to give it. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 14:54, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As others have posted. Non notable entries on list. Not a list that meets criteria. - - MrBill3 (talk) 04:56, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus due to insufficient participation. Stifle (talk) 08:40, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sonja Buholzer[edit]

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

The comes down to a lack of WP:RS resulting in a failure to pass WP:BIO. One book and a few mentions on social bookmarking sites doesn't make a suitable entry, and hence this appears more like WP:ADVERT. Trident13 (talk) 11:34, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with the tendency towards WP:ADVERT in this article - it doesn't help that all the subject's published works are not in English, thus making it harder to judge notability. Eddie.willers (talk) 13:20, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - her books exist, and she has some coverage in local news, possibly just passing WP:GNG. The "career" section is completely unreferenced as it currently stands and should be removed (refs do not contain her name) -- didn't want to do that in an ongoing AfD but tagged the faulty refs. --Pgallert (talk) 21:27, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 16:31, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ratsada E[edit]

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

The only ghits I see are parroting this page. I can't even prove it really existed, no less was notable in any way. As always, would loved to be proven wrong, but as it is with zero sources and none available, fails WP:V Dennis 2¢ 14:11, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 15:37, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, delete it.--DThomsen8 (talk) 19:44, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:20, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unable to find any non-primary or non-secondary reliable sources that give significant coverage to the subject.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:27, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 16:32, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

20 to 1 (darts)[edit]

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

Does not seem to meet notability guidelines; no sources given which indicate what is notable or significant about these rules, or even where they come from 331dot (talk) 12:53, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 13:16, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 13:17, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MADEUP. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:12, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's no way to prove that this was made up by the creator or associates, so it can't be deleted by the easily-abused criterion A11, but the complete absence of sources makes it entirely possible. At any rate, this game hasn't been covered by reliable sources such as academic journals, books, or major media. Nyttend (talk) 20:38, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:GNG - No indication why this is noteworthy. Lack of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. - Taketa (talk) 12:49, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn.

AC Locomotive Group[edit]

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

~~Could find no evidence of notability. Only reference is the group's own website, found no coverage in any news media.~~ Oleaster (talk·contribs) 12:19, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator. Discussion produced sources that show the subject is notable. Oleaster (talk·contribs) 12:05, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By "no evidence", did you look in the railway heritage printed press? Or is it just, "I Googled it and most of the first page was their own website, so there can't be much out there"? I know you've been busy: three days on WP and already 81 articles created. Sorry, pages. Now it's time to get a few articles deleted and then it'll be off to RfA before the weekend. Obviously no time yet to read WP:IMPERFECT.

Yes, this is a crap unreferenced article. That is still no reason to delete it. Once upon a time^{[citation needed]} we used to write articles here. Then other people used to expand articles. Nowadays we don't bother with that tiresome stuff, we just play the Great Wiki Game of pissing all over others' work for fun and profit (Wikimania, 2014). Much more exciting. Much better rewards. You'll have that admin's tin star and shiny purple helmet in no time.

As to the notability of the AC loco group, then don't ask me, I'm no RS. But people who do own locos, like the NRM and several of the major loco leasing companies, seem to regard them as substantial enough to be trusted as curators for the electric parts of the national collection. The RCTS list them alongside commercial train operating companies, although it's only a couple of current mainline registered locos, so that clearly doesn't count.[17] Or even just the electric operating companies like ETL, who used the ACLG for heavy maintenance tasks.[18] That would all tend towards suggesting they're a real museum group and worth regarding moderately seriously. Not in the same league as the Belgian Comic Strip Center of course, but just maybe worth a few bytes on Wikipedia, on the off chance that some poor benighted fool with no ambitions for climbing the greasy mop might actually come along one day and work on usefully improving content? Andy Dingley (talk) 13:34, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't bite the newbie. I nominated this article in good faith, because the article offered no evidence of notability, and a search of the Google News archive, Books, and Scholar found no coverage of the group. A regular Google search found brief mentions on a number of websites, but nothing that could be considered real coverage by a reliable source. That doesn't mean I'm convinced coverage does not exist, only that I was unable to find it after what I feel to be due diligence. I understood the purpose of this discussion to be to find reasons to keep the article, which you are very welcome to provide. Please don't be too quick to draw conclusions as to my character or purpose, as neither are relevant to this discussion. Oleaster (talk·contribs) 14:08, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't be so quick to think that because you can do something, it's a constructive thing to do. I don't understand baseball, so I refrain from running amok and deleting baseball articles. It's also pretty clear that there are many ways to ask a community or project for assistance or opinions as to notability. But no, that tempting little AfD button always calls first... It's just so _important_. A whole article vanishes! You've changed things forever! Whee! Andy Dingley (talk) 14:29, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - In my quick Google search, I found a few references that support the group's notability: The Railway Magazine, Volume 152 (Google Books), also see this article on the magazine's website, Electric Traction News cites the group in a few articles and press releases, RCTS lists their current TOPS locomotive pool codes, as noted above, the National Railway Museum in York uses the society as a resource for parts and to house locomotives (as noted for British Railways electric locomotive Bo-Bo Class 84, No 84001). They even had a locomotive bear the group's name as noted in Electric Railway, Volumes 51-52 (Google Books). I'm sure I could find additional reliable sources with further research. Slambo (Speak) 15:13, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I found some of these sources before nominating the article, but got hung up on them not being 'significant coverage'. In retrospect that was a silly distinction to make in this case, probably stemming from a misunderstanding of the notability guideline. I'll be withdrawing the nomination. Oleaster (talk·contribs) 12:05, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:22, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:22, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:22, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 16:33, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BlackPanther OS[edit]

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

Queried speedy delete, as follows:- Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:00, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Being "the most popular Hungarian developed Linux distribution in Hungary" could potentially be used to decline A7, but it must be sourced to independent and reliable sources. Looking overall, there are no sources across all three language versions. And including a list of download links can be violating WP:NOTLINK. Not able to read into Hungarian or Slovak, I am calling it here with a delete. 野狼院ひさし _{Hisashi Yarouin} 14:50, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG, WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:NOR. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:06, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:35, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:35, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 16:33, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mô hình Gaussian hỗn hợp[edit]

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

this article created in different language in English Wikipedia page and also it dose not mention any reference link to check the authenticity of the article Alexbacho (talk) 11:49, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note The article appears to be a direct translation into Vietnamese of the first section of this publication.--Pontificalibus (talk) 13:12, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article has been posted also to vi:Mô hình Gaussian hỗn hợp; so it might be speedily deleted under WP:A2. —teb728 t c 22:04, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per teb728's reasoning, let them deal with it at vi.wiki. --dragfyre_ʞןɐʇc 17:50, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:36, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW. postdlf (talk) 22:34, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Invite Jesus Into Your Life (Vol1)[edit]

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

Contested Prod. It is something of a struggle to find the kind of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources to suggest that this book satisfies the general notability guideline. VeryCrocker (talk) 11:08, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. This seems more like an advertising attempt. There's no information here as to why it's notable enough to be included. Mandybrigwell (talk) 11:39, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the book has notable needed, i just verified it on google, check it out for yourself and you'll see ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.203.92.63 (talk) 11:43, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you guyz check this link http://www.caribbeancommunitylive.com/content/nortreus-werley-artist-christian-author-and-drummer-cap-haitien-haiti, it's everywhere online, look (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ceraphin1 (talk • contribs) 11:49, 24 October 2014 (UTC) — Ceraphin1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

http://searchcelebrities.com/celebrity-news/christian-singer-and-author-of-the-book-of-invite-jesus-into-your-life-werley-nortreus-is-saving-thousands-and-thousands-of-souls-worldwide-for-jesus-christ-learn-more-about-his-ministry-and-how-his/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ceraphin1 (talk • contribs) 11:55, 24 October 2014 (UTC) — Ceraphin1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

There are many other sources like http://gospelartistspeoplenews.com/2013/12/29/book-released-and-review-invite-jesus-into-your-life-vol1-by-gospel-singer-werley-nortreus/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ceraphin1 (talk • contribs) 12:06, 24 October 2014 (UTC) Ceraphin1 (talk) 12:51, 24 October 2014 (UTC) — Ceraphin1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete. I can't find anything to show that this book ultimately passes notability guidelines for books. It exists, but as existing is not notability that fact means very little here on Wikipedia. As far as the links given above, Search Celebrities is not considered to be a reliable source for several reasons, one of which is that they accept payment from various people who pay for more coverage on their site. This author doesn't seem to be one of those people, but even so this fact makes the site unusable. Ceraphin News Magazine does appear to have an editorial board but we can't really verify its editorial process and it kind of gives off WP:SPS vibes. Carribean Community Live doesn't seem to have anything on their site to show that they have editorial oversight at all, so we have no way of knowing if the article was written by a staff member, a random person, or by someone representing Werley as a whole. Even if we accept these last two sites as reliable sources, they would still not be enough to establish notability in this circumstance. I'm sorry, but the book just doesn't pass notability guidelines for Wikipedia. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:53, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:37, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:37, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Advert created by a single-purpose account. Mr. Guye (talk) 01:13, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
DElete -- WP:ADVERT. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:32, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the number of Ghits can be faked; see Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions#Google_test. In this case, I don't see any significant coverage in reliable sources. There are literally Thousands of other books on the same subject, few of which are notable as we count it at WP:NBOOKS. If we are wrong, please correct us. Bearian (talk) 21:24, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. (non-admin closure) NickGibson3900 ^Talk 04:30, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Russification of Ukraine[edit]

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

Was speedy delete db-all, but it looks politically controversial. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:35, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Changing to speedy keep, given there has been no response from the nominator. JTdale ^Talk 04:21, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep by criterion 1 unless nominator advances an argument for deletion of the article. --Sammy1339 (talk) 15:46, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. --Sammy1339 (talk) 15:52, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. --Sammy1339 (talk) 15:52, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. --Sammy1339 (talk) 15:52, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep — an article on a notable, well-sourced historical process. If it has POV concerns, I'd be happy to work on it, but that alone doesn't justify deletion. LS1979 (talk) 20:02, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 16:34, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Todd Willing[edit]

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

I can find very little notability to this article, it is entirely unreferenced and biased in perspective to, with statements such as He is one of the most influential people from his birthplace Hobart, Tasmania. Google brings up lots of hits where the articles subject is the spokesperson for Ford on a new car design, but very very little indepth coverage. It is simply words "Todd Willing, Design Director for Ford Australia says...". Most indepth article was this; [19]. JTdale ^Talk 08:17, 24 October 2014 (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/2014 October 24. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 08:41, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:39, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:40, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to say delete as even the article creator just deleted the entire content.[20] and the cursory research by the nom. --Oakshade (talk) 16:25, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete under G7 - author blanking article. Hack (talk) 14:56, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Felisha Faye Mendes[edit]

The result was Speedy Delete. Clear case of A7. Notability not asserted. Alexf^(talk) 10:08, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

A search for independent secondary sources finds little to support notability. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO Cult of Green (talk) 03:11, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was unable to find any significant coverage in reliable, independent sources that would show that this model is notable by Wikipedia's standards. The existing reference is a directory listing that shows only that she exists and is a model, and is completely insufficient. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:18, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 16:34, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sage Testini[edit]

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

Autobiography with questionable notability. Mr. Guye (talk) 02:58, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I did a Google Search on the individual and could not come up with an WP:RS, nor was there much coverage on this person as well. --Dekema2 (talk) 05:57, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Minor roles in a few films and TV episodes. Even non-WP:RS IMDb doesn't have much to say about him. He wasn't notable by 2006 and, if IMDb is to be believed, hasn't done anything since. Oh, there's his own Internet talk show ("Life on Hiatus with Sage Testini") which, according to his web site [21] is "coming soon". --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 03:09, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:52, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:52, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. no weight to claim for notability and no reliable sources available online. Canuckle (talk) 06:21, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per WP:A7. There's no claim of notability made in the article and I can't find any sources that could change this. Tchaliburton (talk) 11:54, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well done everybody!. This was part of a research assignment I was working on about the effectiveness of crowdsourcing. I will have a blog about this shortly. Cheers. --reggietini (talk) 03:04, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:POINT and WP:HOAX. Then read them again. And then, for good measure, read them a third time. Then write a blog about what you learned from that. Bearcat (talk) 08:10, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with fire. Bearcat (talk) 08:10, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per G3. Creator admits that this article is a hoax. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:40, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Randykitty (talk) 15:54, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Smart Energy System[edit]

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

Non notable system written as a position paper or advertisement. The only apparent reference is their own--the term, of course, is so general as to be unsearchable. DGG ( talk ) 02:42, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, just to make this abundantly clear at the top of the page, this was recently the subject of a G12 deletion that was overturned at DRV (see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 October 16). Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:56, 27 October 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Seems to be a promotional article written about a concept. EoRdE6 (talk) 02:48, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam. (full disclosure: I closed the deletion review) -- RoySmith (talk) 03:10, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
G11 without further delay please.—S Marshall T/C 12:29, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Smart grid--Pontificalibus (talk) 13:03, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not strongly opposed to the redirect, but neither do I think it's needed. This seems an unlikely search term, which is the purpose of redirects. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:37, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any reason why you think it is an unlikely search term? The phrase appears to be in widespread use e.g. 1.--Pontificalibus (talk) 15:14, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my semi-objection to the redirect. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:14, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No Redirect Smart grid is a electrical system that can detect what is happening to the grid, Smart Energy System is supposed to be a concept of storing renewable energy in the way we store fossil fuels EoRdE6 (talk) 18:22, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete current article, no opinion on redirect. The recent DRV made the situation extremely clear, with repeated reference to "our page". Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:48, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:54, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:54, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:55, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~~or Speedy delete - I added and removed a G12 tag not realizing it had been done already. Much of it comes directly from this paper, so I don't know why it wouldn't apply.~~ G11 might even apply here, as it's promoting the arguments of a single paper, but regardless it's delete. Also fails WP:GNG. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:38, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per the Deletion Review, copyright permission has been legally granted to Wikipedia through the OTRS system. I don't have access to OTRS, so I'm taking it on good faith that everything was done properly. I do note, however, that the copyright holder is not the author, but (as is typical with scientific journals), it is the journal publisher (Copyright © 2014, AIDIC Servizi S.r.l.). I assume the OTRS folks are savvy enough to understand this distinction and have verified that the publisher has indeed granted permission, not just the authors. Until that assumption is shown to be false, G12 does not apply. That's not to say the article shouldn't be deleted for other reasons, such as G11. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:59, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. Striking that part of my !vote now. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:54, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, G11 would arguably apply, but I think that letting this AFD run to its conclusion would remove any doubt. The article clearly exists to promote a particular product (EnergyPLAN) from a particular vendor. You can't take out an advertisement in Britannica, so why should you be able to take one out here? Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:36, 27 October 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete as unencyclopaedic promotion. The article entirely fails to demonstrate that there is any underlying concept that cannot be better covered in other existing articles. Slapping a new label on an existing topic doesn't make it a new topic, and labelling something as 'smart' doesn't make it any smarter... AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:14, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have edited the article to hopefully avoid the self-promoting tone. We (i.e. the Sustainable Energy Planning Research Group at Aalborg University, Denmark) would define the Smart Energy System concept as the next generation of the Smart Grid concept, rather than being part of it. The Smart Grid concept focuses on how the electricity sector can accommodate more renewable energy, while the Smart Energy System concept focuses on how the whole energy system can use more renewable energy (i.e. electricity, heating, and transport). Although the final solution is a concept, parts of this concept have already been implemented. I can add an example of this if it improves the article? I can add a lot of other material, including references to other researchers promoting the general concept, however, I would like to know if the article is improving appropriately before continuing to work on it. Finally, we (the authors, of which I am one) are the owners of the copyright in the online Pdf and we have been in a dialogue with OTRS to verify this. (Dave1898 (talk) 08:43, 31 October 2014 (UTC))[reply]

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

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

The result was move to draft:Bierton Strict and Particular Baptists. If David Clarke can manage to limit the vanity stuff, an article about the church itself may stick. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:27, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bierton Strict and Particular Baptists[edit]

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

Self-published book with no secondary coverage; fails WP:NB. Article created by author. Blackguard 02:31, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is completely unsourced, pointless, and uninformative. Doesn't pass most of Wikipedia's criteria for Notability or Article Quality EoRdE6 (talk) 02:41, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 08:26, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Bierton Crisis[edit]

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

Self-published book with no secondary coverage; fails WP:NB. Article created by author. Blackguard 02:29, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The author of the book and this article may mention it in Draft:Bierton Strict and Particular Baptists which may get accepted. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:07, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:56, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:57, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NBOOKS. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:40, 25 October 2014 (UTC)--— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:40, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- At best this is privately self-published; at worst it is an unpublihsed typescript, of which the author has given copies to the copyright libraries (whether they want it or not!). Peterkingiron (talk) 19:37, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication it meets even one of the criteria in WP:NBOOK. I am One of Many (talk) 05:32, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Indo-Pakistani wars and conflicts. Although I personally don't see this as a likely search term, the consensus here seems to be going towards a merge/redirect. Anything worth merging elsewhere is still available in the article history. Randykitty (talk) 16:00, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Threat of nuclear war between India and Pakistan[edit]

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

Declined PROD that isn't notable. NickGibson3900 ^Talk 01:47, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the significantly better Indo-Pakistani wars and conflicts, which has a section on "Nuclear-arms race". Threat of nuclear war between India and Pakistan has no references, while the redirect target I propose has 72 references. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:10, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is an important topic. This page should not be deleted.

Within the page itself it is evident that there is a possibility of nuclear war between India and Pakistan. Users of Wikipedia have the right to remain informed on this vital issue.

Maakhter (talk) 10:32, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please understand that while Wikipedia will record information about current events that are in the news, we are not a news site ourselves (WP:NOTNEWS), nor are we a forum to report on various different issues. We are here to inform, but in the context of an encyclopedia. The type of informing you are referring to is more appropriate for news sites, forums, blogs, and the like. There's just no real need for a separate article if it's already covered in another article. The only way you can show otherwise is to add plenty of references to show that nuclear war specifically needs its own page outside of the main article entry. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:58, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which guidelines and policies were used to create following pages?

Cuban missile crisis

https://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=Cuban_missile_crisis

Cold War

https://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=Cold_War

Nuclear arms race

https://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=Nuclear_arms_race

The nuclear arms race was a competition for supremacy in nuclear warfare between the United States, the Soviet Union, and their respective allies during the Cold War.

Soviet Union–United States relations

https://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=Soviet_Union%E2%80%93United_States_relations

Maakhter (talk) 20:36, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Indo-Pakistani wars and conflicts per Cullen Nick-D (talk) 23:11, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Nick-D (talk) 23:14, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as above per Cullen's suggestion. Topic does not warrant a stand alone article and can be sufficiently covered at Indo-Pakistani wars and conflicts. Anotherclown (talk) 01:43, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - This editor is simply trying to reconstruct Kashmir - the most dangerous place in the world in a more elaborate way. Kautilya3 (talk) 21:39, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:58, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:58, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:59, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - How come we have to create a redirect when we can simply include one or two paragraphs on any India-Pakistan relationship article. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:15, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What about these pages?

Cuban missile crisis

https://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=Cuban_missile_crisis

Cold War

https://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=Cold_War

Nuclear arms race

https://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=Nuclear_arms_race

The nuclear arms race was a competition for supremacy in nuclear warfare between the United States, the Soviet Union, and their respective allies during the Cold War.

Soviet Union–United States relations

https://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=Soviet_Union%E2%80%93United_States_relations

When these pages will be deleted or merged?

Maakhter (talk) 17:56, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Indo-Pakistan wars and conflicts. The article's content should be copied to that article's talk page with a collapsed hatnote for further discussion as the content here is probably useful and might make a subsection there under Indo-Pakistani wars and conflicts#Nuclear-arms race but it is not separately needed as numerous articles cover this topic from different aspects and this is just a fork. Noting that the creator also created Kashmir - the most dangerous place in the world (which is also under AFD on similar grounds), it would be a good idea for an experienced editor to mentor the creator about wikipedia to turn his efforts into useful ones instead of creating forks as intent might be good as I get from these two contributions. I'm not going for a 'delete' because the descriptive title of this article is an excellent redirect candidate per se. --lTopGunl (talk) 00:05, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and mentor as suggested. I'm busy this week. Bearian (talk) 21:16, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge I agree with a merge into Indo-Pakistani wars and conflicts per Cullen. That article is more developed and would cover the subject more suitably. Or we can just wait until this article develops more itself. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 04:53, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- It could also be redirected to Nuclear warfare, although it may not be notable enough for that article. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 04:57, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Indo-Pakistani wars and conflicts as suggested by TopGun. Mar4d (talk) 04:56, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to Daniel R. Gernatt, Sr.. Basically, per EEng. This is indeed a collection of hugely bloated articles, oversourced and full of forgettable trivia, notwithstanding the fact that the writing style and skill with which these articles have been made are at a professional level. Randykitty (talk) 16:30, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gernatt Family of Companies[edit]

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

This article's notability as a local company with primarily local references is in question. As discussed on the article's talk page, the article primarily uses local sources with the subject in question being sparingly featured in most. Certainly, there are verifiable sources of this company's existence and notability, however, as the guidelines describe, "article content does not determine notability." While the article appears to be well written, the article does seem to raise questions about the notability guidelines that have been set forth. --Dekema2 (talk) 01:34, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:COMPANY. No statement of notability. Just a local sand/rock/cement group. Softlavender (talk) 02:01, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Just to add for purposes of clarification, I noticed "What links here" for the article led to articles where the subject was prominently featured for notability purposes, including Family business and sand mining, although the latter may be justified. --Dekema2 (talk) 02:21, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently no mention at sand mining. However, the article creator added a non-notable mention on Work accident. Softlavender (talk) 03:47, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the creator of this group of articles could think that "In August 2013, an employee of the Gernatt Family of Companies experienced a work accident in which he received third degree burns when a conveyor belt exploded during start-up and caused a fire at the companies' asphalt plant in Yorkshire, New York" belongs in the general article Work Accidents neatly sums up what's wrong here. There's no sense of proportion or appropriateness at all. Bonus points for the worker "experiencing" an accident. EEng (talk) 03:12, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Correction. It was Environmental impact of mining. --Dekema2 (talk) 05:47, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. I have to admit this article is very well written, highly referenced, and there seems to be some slight notability but pretty much entirely the coverage is local. It annoys me I couldn't find any notability, as this is a great article otherwise. There is plenty of notability for its owner/founder but not for the company itself. I would recommend merging a reasonable amount of this content into the page Daniel R. Gernatt, Sr JTdale ^Talk 10:06, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:59, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:59, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge to Daniel R. Gernatt, Sr. -- and then have a deletion discussion for that article, and other related articles such as Dan Gernatt Farms and Flavia C. Gernatt. This "family" of articles is one of the most bizarre examples of strained, repetitive, content bloat I've ever seen -- see WP:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2014_October_11#Template:Daniel_R._Gernatt.2C_Sr. Even if the outcome here is Keep, WP:TNT would be a very good path to follow. EEng (talk) 03:05, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I honestly cannot even begin to say how completely offended I am regarding this discussion. This is incredible! This garbage began with Carriearchdale in July, and is continuing with other editors, it appears with every article that I have written in relation to this family and their companies. It should be noted that, for the most part, Softlavender and Eeng (and some others) have had little to nothing good to say about me or my contributions here. I do not believe they are impartial, and in fact, are biased against even considering the perspective that this and related articles are notable. That makes it appear to me - as is understandable, but may or may not be accurate - that because editors simply don't like these articles and don't believe there is "enough" notability (even though it has been achieved) regarding them, that they be deleted. Other articles have met notability, but because the consensus was to delete, they were deleted, and Wikipedia's guidelines were actually not followed and did not take precedence. Another more experienced editor than Dekema2 threatened to put this article up for deletion back around July, and did not. He decided that it met notability. The article was accepted for publication one year ago by User:John from Idegon because it met notability, and it still does. It never ceases to amaze me that people's personal perspectives impede the objectivity of Wikipedia, particularly in relation to whether or not articles are maintained here. The article meets notability because the companies have been discussed at length in St. John's Law Review and The Urban Lawyer, both professional journals. It further meets notability due to additional at-length presentations in McClatchy Tribune Business News out of Washington, DC, and of course, The Buffalo News. Therefore, the article has more than met Wikipedia's guidelines for notability. Other references associated with the article simply add to and support already-established notability. That the article has now been put up deletion is pointless and I can see has been a complete waste of my time. Why have I spent so many countless hours contributing here? I regret ever contributing anything to Wikipedia. I expected better from this organization, and am continually disappointed by the politics present here. It is great when people work together to improve and enhance this project, but to continually experience these situations, now in this fifth contribution that I've made regarding this particular family/companies is more than discouraging. I guess I expected that my prior excellent experience as a professional newspaper editor would be equaled here, but it has been more like a roller coaster. Again, that this article has been put up for Afd is unfounded and unnecessary as it has more than met Wikipedia's criteria for notability. Daniellagreen ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:17, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To further follow-up, it should be plain that Dekema2 has done absolutely nothing to contribute to or improve this article. The only thing Dekema2 has done for this article is to it's detriment, by putting it up for afd. Dekema2 placed a message on my talk page, stating that their only aim at doing the afd is to gain a consensus regarding notability. That is not a reason for placing an article up for deletion, as per the deletion policy. If there is an issue with an article, the article should be fixed. However, there is no issue with the article because notability has been more than established per Wikipedia's guidelines. This is a Class C article, and is worthy of consideration for Class B if the reference structure is improved, which I am no longer willing to do. Those editors who have invested the most time and effort into this article, including me and User:Stesmo appear to observe our work being in vain. After investing 60 hours into this article, I stopped keeping count of my time. For an editor to threaten to tag it for notability, and then, instead tag it afd is obviously drive-by tagging from an editor who has just appeared out of the blue for no other reason than to want the article deleted. It should also be noted that Dekema2 is an inexperienced editor who has been on Wikipedia for all of 3 months. The one article that Dekema2 supposedly created is actually tagged with 3 different problems that have not been fixed. Yet, Dekema2 is supposedly concerned about issues with this article that actually do not exist. What has been plain is the continual politics played against my work on these articles. Again, it should also be plain that Softlavender and especially EEng are biased against this article and other related articles about this family and their companies. Those who stir the pot and encourage other editors to be detrimental to such articles diminish Wikipedia as an organization. As always, it is much easier for people to do an afd than actually contribute to and improve an article. Again, this is a Class C article that has more than met notability requirements, and has no place on this discussion board. Those who bring it down, and who are negative and critical are only a detriment to this project as a whole. Daniellagreen ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:42, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Daniellagreen: WP:AGF!! Dekema2 has been nothing but polite to you. [22] This has been going on for too long now and just reflects your inability to function in a collaborative environment. If you continue to attack other editors, I will seek administrative intervention against you per WP:CIR. NQ talk 10:20, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – While this looks very well-written (well, except for the too many references, which seem to constitute about half of the actual total byte size), I think that the article should be moved to a user sandbox until the other issues are worked out; e.g. the sources themselves. It also seems that this company is a regional company, but not even a national or international company, and that it should be split up or reduced. – Epicgenius (talk) 00:29, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Very well-written"? You must be joking. Exhibit A: "In 2001, the companies were awarded an honorable mention for the design of the company website in the annual Pit & Quarry awards." EEng (talk) 01:08, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I'm joking; why else would I suggest a move to userspace?

If I was serious, I'd say keep it as is, which obviously isn't going to happen. But in the userspace, Daniellagreen can revise their article before re-publishing it, rather than having the article wholly deleted without any remaining content with which to improve. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:33, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Move to userspace – This will allow Daniellagreen to improve their article before re-moving the article to article space. In the meantime, I will also suggest to delete the existing title after the page is moved. Epicgenius (talk) 14:56, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The companies are not notable enough to move back to article space; "improving" the article is not going to change that. AfD is not a discussion about how good an article is or whether it needs to be "improved"; it is a discussion about whether the subject meets Wikipedia notability guidelines for inclusion. This does not. Softlavender (talk) 23:09, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I've look through the sources and it's all routine coverage, passing mentions, trade-journal puff pieces, etc. EEng (talk) 23:37, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What I mean by moving back into article space can also mean that it can be merged into a planned Daniel R. Gernatt, Sr article as a subsection. Epicgenius (talk) 03:33, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep--Ymblanter (talk) 08:21, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mediaocean[edit]

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

no evidence for notability; sources are either mere notices or press releases DGG ( talk ) 00:03, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Article from Wall Street Journal already included. Notability is firmly established with sources that need to be added to article. Forbes, Advertising Age, Business Insider, Yahoo Finance, some in The Guardian. Coverage of Pandora integration in Billboard Magazine. Also pre 2012 it was called Donovan Data Systems, and there is an article on that company I am going to merge right now, plus more coverage on its pre-2012 business. JTdale ^Talk 10:23, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:59, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:59, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:59, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:00, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep enough sources for establishing notability. Noteswork (talk) 06:11, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Most of the article was not relevant to the company: it was about prior companies. So, I removed the irrelevant content, which made it a stub, but the sources left still establish notability. I am One of Many (talk) 06:00, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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