Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 July 26

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 25 July	27 July >

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. --BDD (talk) 20:48, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Philips Phile

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

Fails notability criteria. Apparently just an attempt to use Wikipedia to promote a radio show. One entry from Orlando Sentinel on apparent gossip columnist. Pretty much it. Just an ordinary show. Most obviously missing is a cited statement of audited listeners. Student7 (talk) 23:05, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Average afternoon drive radio show in average market. All the "sources" are WP:ADVERTs and nothing extraordinary about this show. Nate • (chatter) 09:10, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - purely local, "many of the show's topics are specific to the Orlando area." Bearian (talk) 17:23, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 20:50, 2 August 2013 (UTC) --90.201.62.184 (talk) 20:29, 9 February 2014 (UTC)===ZEpir (code word)===[reply]

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

No evidence this term is notable, just passing mentions in sources confirming it existed. L Faraone 22:10, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see us having an article for an internally-used code word at one company. If there's a place for this, it's in the British American Tobacco article, but I sdon't think even a redirect makes sense. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:52, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The main assertion for the term, a quote from a British American Tobacco memo, is un-sourced. The sources cited in the article do not support notability for the term. - tucoxn\^talk 00:12, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus at this page is for restoring the village article. Should that article, in turn, be nominated for deletion or redirect, further discussion can take place. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:11, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quartino

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

dab-page pointing nowhere The Banner talk 21:35, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The page started out as an article about the village. An editor turned it into a dab page in 2010. Since villages are notable, why not turn the page back into a geo stub? • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Restore to village stub, with a hatnote to E-flat clarinet. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:40, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as stub on the village, with hatnote to clarinet (and to any future article about caraffe sizes...?) PamD 12:46, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to keep as disambiguation. If there is sufficient verifiable and encyclopedic content for an article, it should probably be titled Quartino, Ticino or Quartino (Ticino) following the naming conventions for the locale. It may be worth noting that neither German nor Italian wikipedias have an article of the hamlet. If this is deleted, it should be redirected to E-flat clarinet with a hatnote there to either Magadino or Gambarogno. older ≠ wiser 12:55, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 2 valid entries. No clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. But also restore article at Quartino, Ticino or Quartino (Ticino), as suggested by Bkonrad. Boleyn (talk) 20:27, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep concur with Bkonrad, Boleyn, 2 valid entries, no obvious primary, a valid DAB. Saying that, the village could live here per PamD. To tip it I added a person = 3 entries (and another nice photo) Widefox; talk 23:14, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I am baffled and delighted by this development that I did not expect at all! The Banner talk 00:04, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Revert per Gene93k to an article on the village. This is nonsense. --BDD (talk) 20:53, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. For those suggesting this revert to an article on the village, please indicate what verifiable source(s) be used as the basis for the article. As I indicated previously, the German and Italian language wikipedias don't have an article on the place, suggesting there might not be sufficient material for standalone article. older ≠ wiser 21:30, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Populated places are automatically notable (WP:GEOLAND, WP:NPLACE). It's never going to be an FA, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be an article. As for sources, you needn't look further than the Magadino article. The Historical Dictionary of Switzerland has us covered (French, German, Italian). --BDD (talk) 22:40, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your notable populated place is good enough for a redirect. I suggest that we leave it in the present state as a worthy disambiguation page and close this AfD as keep. The Banner talk 23:13, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Huh. I really thought you were being sarcastic above. --BDD (talk) 23:16, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not every populated place automatically merits an article. Many are redirects to an article about a larger community, such that rather than a one-sentence article saying that a place exists, there is a redirect to an article that might have the same sentence along with additional context. For example, even the source that you cite only mentions Quartino in the context of an article about Magadino. older ≠ wiser 01:43, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by User:DGG per CSD A7, "Article about a real person, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject." (Non-administrator discussion closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:08, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Sewperman

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

Non notable pornographic actor with a role in only one film. Judging from the fact that the article's creator is "Sewperman" this is a possible autobiography. Beerest355 Talk 19:58, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This page obviously is a vanity page built by the subject. Should be deleted, no question. Icarus of old (talk) 21:29, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Comment. I don't see any credible assertion of notability in the article. I'll do a deeper search for reliable sources later. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point. I just nominated it for speedy deletion under A7. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:32, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't satisfy WP:GNG, WP:BIO, or WP:PORNBIO — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:29, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. My searches for reliable source coverage got absolutely nothing. Fails GNG. Fails PORNBIO with no awards or nominations. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Probably an autobiography; non-notable. APerson (talk!) 14:22, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 17:03, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Classical Music Discoveries

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

Article is about a classical music podcast. There is no evidence that this is a notable podcast. The article claims the monthly audience is over 50 million people, but their website claims 27 million. There are no reliable sources to support these numbers and a Google search for this finds only primary sources and blogs related to the show. Cannot find any third-party reliable verifiable source and the author has provided none. — Bill W. (Talk) (Contrib) — 19:45, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the original PROD-er (PROD-ee?) and per the reasons above; for a podcast with 27 million listeners as claimed there is a dearth of information to establish notability. --TKK! bark with me if you're my dog! 20:20, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found one mention on a site that sells sheet music ([1]), and another from a local newspaper, which has unfortunately been archived and paywalled (paywalled archive here [2]), (Google cache of first paragraph here [3]). The sheet music site does appear to have some editorial control, although this may not be enough to qualify as a reliable source. Altamel (talk) 22:12, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question - I'm pretty new to the AfD process, so I have to ask. At what point is discussion closed and a decision made. It's been 5 days and no comment from the article creator or the user that was defending the article on its talk page, and no changes made to the article. — Bill W. (Talk) (Contrib) — 14:47, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's seven days until the discussion closes. Judging from the dearth of !votes on this nomination, the closing admin might relist the nomination for another seven days to try to reach a broader consensus. I'm leaning towards delete, as coverage of the article has been sparse.Altamel (talk) 23:47, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I notified everyone who had ever edited the article, and no one has come to its defense. — Bill W. (Talk) (Contrib) — 01:36, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Fails every criterion of WP:GNG, is messy and poorly formatted anyway. --SamX‧☎‧✎‧S 14:33, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Frame story. Users interested in performing a merge can use the page history to do so. --BDD (talk) 20:56, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Framing device

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

The only source for "framing device" in the article does not support the definition given. Furthermore, "framing device" does exist as a term, but not as a defined term, judging by my searches done on Google Books and Google Scholar. In my opinion Wikipedia should only have terms who are widely used and clearly defined. Spannerjam 19:07, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Frame story, which seems to be the same thing. Borock (talk) 04:41, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to frame story, both articles cover the same topic. The list of examples can be used to expand the target start article. Diego (talk) 21:13, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 20:58, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PromiseLand San Marcos

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

Can find no significant, wide-ranging coverage in independent, third-party sources. Found only some general promotional and cross-promotional web posting and routine local news coverage. Wkharrisjr (talk) 19:02, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Negligible coverage of this apparently ordinary church. -- 202.124.89.10 (talk) 12:49, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable. GregJackP Boomer! 15:29, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails notability. Jason from nyc (talk) 16:08, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 17:03, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rod_Kim

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

Autobiographical page, user ID Aleixa77 is Rod Kim's account, Google search reveals it as his YouTube user name Bugs32cent (talk) 21:36, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable musician. Koala15 (talk) 04:15, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 18:37, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 17:04, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cariri Metro

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

This article was created by the prolific sockmaster user:Edson Rosa who created a number of non-notable articles. I can't find article that establish notability, but perhaps someone with more knowledge with companies and Brazil can. In any case, it needs vetting. I am One of Many (talk) 21:27, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- I get 1 ghit for it (apart from WP), which does not mention the subject. It was allegedly being built in 2009, so that it ought to be finsihed by now. Is this WP:HOAX? Peterkingiron (talk) 15:24, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 18:36, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 17:04, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RKVC

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

Autobiographical page, user ID Aleixa77 is Rod Kim's account, Google search reveals it as his YouTube user name Bugs32cent (talk) 21:35, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. hmssolent\^{You rang?} _{ship's log} 13:11, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable band. Koala15 (talk) 04:14, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 18:35, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Courcelles 17:05, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

O Music Awards

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

Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources outside of those owned by Viacom. Lots of coverage in the blog associated with the awards as well as Viacom news sources like MTV, VH1, etc. Scant little coverage from other sources. Prod contested with pointers to Viacom owned coverage.RadioFan (talk) 23:55, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Billboard, USA Today, Huffington Post, and Forbes are Viacom-owned sources are they? --Michig (talk) 05:51, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the coverage I've seen from the sources you mention sources is scant, especially compared to Viacom owned sources, which makes the whole thing feel very promotionally to me. I had to wade through pages and pages of coverage from Viacom sources to find brief mentions in other sources.--RadioFan (talk) 11:35, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You stated that I deproded with pointers to Viacom-owned coverage. The edit summary is there in the article history. Don't misrepresent my edits. --Michig (talk) 15:57, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I would hardly call full articles in Billboard, Reuters, USA Today and probably others "scant little coverage". Clarityfiend (talk) 00:27, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article (including tone) could use improvement, but the existing independent sources such as those identified above are sufficient in my view to warrant an article. Gong show 12:56, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 18:32, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:15, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Westwood North Village, Los Angeles

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

No claim in article that it is Notable in any way. Not listed as a neighborhood in Mapping L.A. or The Thomas Guide. This is simply a part of Westwood Village, Los Angeles. GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:14, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is an official neighborhood

There is an official L.A. City designation of an area under this name on Gayley east-bound just past Veteran, roughly in the area the article mentions (I have not confirmed exact borders), demonstrating that it is an official L.A. City neighborhood. While Mapping LA or the Thomas Guide are useful, they should probably not be used as the sole arbitrer of what is or what isn't a neighborhood in L.A. The City has made its own neighborhood charts and listings, though sometimes outside of asking the right people at City Hall its hard to pin-point where they are (or whether they exist). This neighborhood is recognized by the City, although I do not have more information on in what shape or form. Another good source to look is LA Almanac on the web. I have noticed an increased use of Mapping LA as a source for information about neighborhoods in the City but we should recognize it is only one source and it could omit or be erroneous about several facts.

Needs improvement

Otherwise, the article seems to fail to meet Wikipedia standards toward the bottom of the page where it starts talking in first-person about what they have heard or know about the area without use of sources and lacking the proper tone and style. This should be improved.

It should be kept as a stub or merged as a sub-category in the larger Westwood neighborhood article, but not deleted. --Daniel E Romero (talk) 06:39, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Response. The pertinent policy says, "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we only publish the opinions of reliable authors . . . " GeorgeLouis (talk) 07:23, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or Redirect to Westwood, Los Angeles; not separately notable. --MelanieN (talk) 15:56, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 18:19, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Westwood Village, Los Angeles - It's simply not an officially or unofficially separate neighborhood. Yes, Westwood Village has a north section of it, but it's not a distinct neighborhood. --Oakshade (talk) 00:26, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It's not clear to me if this is part of Westwood Village, or if it and Westwood Village are both subneighborhoods of Westwood. The article itself seems to suggest the latter. Anybody able to clear this up so we can choose the appropriate redirect target? --MelanieN (talk) 19:36, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Not sure if this is referring to Westwood Village. I'm changing this to delete unless I can be shown otherwise.--Oakshade (talk) 22:59, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to West Los Angeles. Stifle (talk) 19:01, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Westgate, Los Angeles

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

Not Notable. Only source is a display advertisement for the original tract. GeorgeLouis (talk) 03:12, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Gong show 02:39, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or Redirect to West Los Angeles. I could not find any evidence that this neighborhood is separately notable. --MelanieN (talk) 16:05, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 18:18, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Devo 2.0. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 16:05, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kane Ritchotte

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

This article's subject is yet another DEVO 2.0 member only mentioned in articles about the band and the films and shows he appeared in. That's what this Google News search shows, and I couldn't find any other independent sources out of that search mainly focusing or at least going in-depth on this subject. It's likely the bands he drummed in are non-notable too. Editor Eat ma talk page up, scotty! 23:26, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Devo 2.0 per WP:MUSICBIO, which suggests that non-notable "members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article". Gong show 04:12, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 11:53, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 18:15, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Devo 2.0 per Gongshow's proposal. Finnegas (talk) 13:21, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to University of Hull. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 22:46, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hull Ice Hogs

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

non notable university sports team. Little coverage of most university sport in the UK. noq (talk) 15:19, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (however minimally) and redirect to University of Hull, which needs a section on the school's athletics. postdlf (talk) 16:07, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 11:52, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My immediate reaction was "delete", but I would support postdlf's suggestion. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:44, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 18:10, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. With the relevant information already mentioned at Steve King, there's nothing to merge. --BDD (talk) 21:02, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Steve King cantaloupe calves comment controversy

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

Wikipedia is not news. Entry duplicates information in article on Steve King. POV fork. GregJackP Boomer! 18:10, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per GregJackP. Jackmcbarn (talk) 18:12, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Casprings (talk) 18:28, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Casprings (talk) 18:28, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a unique story, especially for its WP:effect. Immigration is a huge issue in American politics and there are multiple commentary how this controversy effects that debate.Casprings (talk) 18:33, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - "unique story" = news; and it hasn't really had an effect. No legislation has been passed on the matter and at this time it is just a POV fork. Until it becomes more important and does have an actual effect, it belongs on the Steve King page. GregJackP Boomer! 18:39, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Every bad-taste comment made is not a notable topic for a WP article. The article also did not mention any controversy since nobody seemed to be defending the comments. A controversy needs two sides. I haven't checked it out but I have a feeling the info is already well-reported in Steve King.Borock (talk) 00:01, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with extreme prejudice. Little more than an attempt to attack a living person. No evidence of long standing controversy. Arzel (talk) 03:21, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Keep With an adjustment. Since when does quoting someone's own words constitute attacking them? Especially when they stand by their comments? And there is voluminous "evidence of long standing controversy" regarding King's record of incendiary comments. While I question whether the single event of the cantaloupe comment rises to the level of it's own article, if anything, the article should be renamed: "Steve King comment controversies", so the entire catalog and content of his controversial statements could be found in one place. FYI, I'd define controversial for this purpose as: notable comments that received widespread, reliably sourced, notoriety and/or condemnation, from across the political spectrum. That's not an attack. Since these are well-documented and well-sourced facts, it's an encyclopedic entry. 2602:306:BD61:E0F0:C0CD:6FDD:5F22:7634 (talk) 08:12, 27 July 2013 (UTC)— 2602:306:BD61:E0F0:C0CD:6FDD:5F22:7634 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 08:12, 27 July 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Comment - so I take it you would not have a similar problem with a similar article on controversial gun control comments by Diane Feinstein or controversial racial comments by Jesse Jackson? It's not appropriate, and violates WP:BLP. GregJackP Boomer! 12:06, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Response - In your rush to make your partisan equivalency, you clearly missed the critical part of my comment where I noted that I defined "controversial" as: "comments that received widespread... notoriety and/or condemnation, from across the political spectrum". Pretty confident you'd have a harder time reaching that standard than you think. King reaches it on a regular basis, much to the disquietude of his own party bosses. Hence the justification for my suggestion in his unique case. But if realistically, or even hypothetically, you'd like to try it with other folks, have at it. Each attempt would be judged on its own individual merits. 2602:306:BD61:E0F0:5C7F:CF57:4F5A:39CB (talk) 20:47, 30 July 2013 (UTC)— 2602:306:BD61:E0F0:C0CD:6FDD:5F22:7634 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 20:47, 30 July 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Comment - Would you have preferred I referenced Sen. Max Baucus' anti-gay ads in 2002? It makes no difference to the matter before us, which is that the material is not suitable for its own article. We are here to build an encyclopedia, not provide partisan campaign fodder, for either side. GregJackP Boomer! 23:20, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Response - 1) You certainly do appear fundamentally incapable of seeing beyond your own clear partisanship. 2) You're also either unwittingly, or willfully, misstating another losing example. Because Baucus did not run "anti-gay ads": a) There was ONE ad that slammed his opponent's hair care school for defrauding US Dept of Education student loan funds and diverting $159,000 of them to his own personal benefit. b) Unlike King, Baucus did publicly repudiate that ad because of the "beauty salon" innuendo. c) The ad was created and paid for by the DSCC, not the Baucus' campaign. d) Baucus also never made comments regarding the ad that "received notoriety and/or condemnation, from across the political spectrum". So your example fails to reach my threshold on every level. e) Even the fact that you had to reach back 11 years to find your most recent fatally flawed example, only further proves the point. But again, it exposes the sad fact that your interest doesn't appear to extend to getting your facts straight, just in advancing your own transparent partisan politics. That is unfortunate. Or perhaps you did not know all the facts surrounding your example, in which case in fairness, say so. But regarding King, even a cursory and impartial review of his BLP reveals the catalog of his long history of incendiary comments: from the Obama middle name section, to affirmative action, to lobbying, to racial profiling, to Todd Akin's rape comments, to animal fighting, etc. The cantaloupe comment is merely the latest and likely not the last King comment to make headlines. So no article devoted exclusively to his controversial statements - none of which he ever repudiates - would be "campaign fodder". It is simply an encyclopedic catalog of reliably sourced and widely reported facts. Facts that no opposing campaign would, contrary to your assertion, ever need to rely on Wikipedia to obtain. Not when there's Google, Bing, YouTube, the Congressional Record, LexisNexis, in addition to opposition research and the public record. But even so, as an encyclopedia, that is not our concern. Our concern is only reliably sourced and widely reported facts. In response to your prior claim, reliably sourced and widely reported facts never violate BLP policy. Refer you to: WP:PUBLICFIGURE. 2602:306:BD61:E0F0:B4AF:4E3E:A87A:B57E (talk) 11:19, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Just another minor controversy, perhaps important for King's career, but with no lasting effects on anything else. WP:NOTNEWS. No reason it can't be covered in Steve King's main article (except that it's protected). --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:41, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested, to Steve King. When and if he runs for higher office, then a proper fork to a new article such as Political positions of Steve King can be created. Bearian (talk) 18:01, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to be just a POV fork. Capitalismojo (talk) 14:42, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The politician and the episode is not important enough for this to merit its own article. Neither do I see a need for a merge as the episode is already included in the Steve King article, and there more articulately written than the prose of this article. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 12:46, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. With only 3 people participating in the discussion, one cannot say with certainty that we have established a consensus. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 19:24, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Middlesbrough and Teesside Philanthropic Foundation

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

No notability, contested CSD deletion because "The BBC reported on the organization". External links are only on job creation provided by the organization, however, the overall article appears like a press release. Dusti^*poke* 15:49, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 11:51, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now -- This is potentially a significant initiative to regenerate a rundown town. The subject may need to be reconsidered in a year or two from now. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:47, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 18:09, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: news coverage, Charity Commission registration (I've added the link), acknowledged on MHFC website (EL added). Seems notable. PamD 19:37, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Merge proposals may take place in the appropriate venue. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 22:49, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Pakistani heads of state or government

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

We already have List of Presidents of Pakistan and List of Prime Ministers of Pakistan. I see little purpose behind having this list. Seems redundant. Mar4d (talk) 13:28, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see a huge difference between a state's head or executive and a president or a prime minister. Especially like a country like Pakistan, such lists are essential as chief exececutive keeps changing all the way. It may be a dictator, president or a prime minister. Therefore, the concerned article is eligible. Fai zan 02:05, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 11:49, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 18:08, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but Merge in the other two lists. This is an omnibus list that includes the people on the other lists but with the addition, for example, of Governor-Generals. Therefore deletion is not the way to go because it would lose essential information. OTOH because of the overlaps having three lists is messy and inefficient. Best, I think, to put all the lists together in one. The Whispering Wind (talk) 01:52, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I do not see any valid reasons for removal except technical problems with links. Fix it. My very best wishes (talk) 21:45, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. With no response to the page creator's opposition for 2 weeks, one cannot say that there is a consensus here to delete the article or that there is a consensus to keep. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 22:55, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Archers Rise

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

Non-notable band lacking GHITs and GNEWs of substance. Article references do not appear to be sufficient to support notability. reddogsix (talk) 20:06, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only matches I can find for this band (including the article's current sources) are for social media pages and non-notable blogs. Subject does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:BAND at this time. Gong show 04:17, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As the page's creator, and someone who's familiar with WP policy, I wouldn't have created the page if I thought their notability was lacking. I'll toss out a few reasons:

Producer association. The band has had both of their projects produced by very notable individuals, Jeff Schneeweis (Number One Gun) and Jessy Ribordy. Just do a Google search on those gents.
The frontman and founder of the band was the lead guitarist of Falling Up for four years, from start-up to its peak. In the realm of Christian rock, that band is far beyond notable, and was a game-changer for the industry.
Archers Rise shared the stage with musicians such as Disciple, Linda Perry, and others.
They were publicly supported by several well-known individuals (see page) during the funding of their upcoming album, which was completely fan-funded.
They've played on the Warped Tour.

Overall, I feel that the band has achieved enough status and notability, at least on the USA's West Coast for this page. —Maktesh ^(talk) 18:50, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 11:55, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 18:07, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 02:00, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Francois Russo

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

Please note this is a neutral procedural nomination; I neither support nor oppose deletion as this time, though I reserve the right to change my mind.

This article was declined at AfC and userfied. As a user page, it was brought up at MfD, where two editors thought it worthy of deletion and two indicating it should be moved to mainspace and tested at AfD. So here we are. --BDD (talk) 19:18, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. --BDD (talk) 19:19, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 11:57, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I cannot find any evidence that this guy meets the guidelines for inclusion or the general notability guide. — sparklism ^hey! 09:54, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 18:06, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I had originally flagged this at MfD before which it had been a declined AfC and a CSD A7. Since the decision to move it to article space and bring to AfD, I've been holding off, intending to reconsider whether the subject is notable. However, the article has a mixture of references that are product notices, primary sources, articles about the subject's former employer which don't appear to mention the subject, and the sort of publicity material that anyone requires to work in this field, rather than clear evidence of biographical notability. The most substantial is probably the article on the post-ism blog, but even that is as much about the firm's products than the subject. AllyD (talk) 19:27, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 15:47, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vernacular Music Center

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

Completing nomination for 211.181.131.34, rationale (from talk page) is as follows: I think it's pretty obvious that the article is promotional though. There are way too many external links within the body of the article. It's a straight up advertisement. It even reads like one. This article only talks about what services VMC offers to different groups of people (students/educators/general public). It says nothing about the history or notable alumni. It doesn't even have any news article references. I know because I looked it up on Google, Google Books, and Google News. Nothing useful (just because there are a lot of links doesn't mean they're useful; you actually have to read the links). Not to mention there's currently only two references, three if you include the one you just added. I have no opinion. Hut 8.5 14:52, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I'm the nominator. Also, as noted on the talk page, this article was speedily deleted before two years ago for the same reason (promo/advert) that I'm nominating it for deletion now. 211.181.131.34 (talk) 15:14, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now, re-review later The only real question is suitable coverage in sources to meet wp:notability The article has other issues which would call for improvement of the article, not deletion. The editor is a newbe and probably first understood wp:notability sourcing requirements when I notified them 1-2 days ago. So suitable sources have not been looked for, and so their existence is still an open question. After a few weeks we'll know. North8000 (talk) 15:24, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the author. Feedback and assistance are much appreciated. I would seek to conform to Wikipedia practices & expectations in all parameters. Intention is to serve wider intellectual community by engaging in discourse. All critiques noted. Thanks to commenters for opportunity to continue corrections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drchristopherjsmith (talk • contribs) 18:33, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the author. Further editing to bring article within Wikipedia guidelines is ongoing. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drchristopherjsmith (talk • contribs) 21:52, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the author. Further editing, specifically to excise inappropriate links from other Wikipedia articles to this one, and to add to this one References and Notes, is ongoing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drchristopherjsmith (talk • contribs) 22:09, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I found problems with of five the sources you added. Please see the article's talk page under "Sources" for a longer explanation. In short, they don't validate the facts they're supposed to be serving as a citation for. Also, the reference.com source does not show VMC's notability. 211.181.131.34 (talk) 05:46, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the author. Continue efforts to reach compliance in light of comments above and nomination for deletion. I appreciate the opportunity to do so and the feedback provided by discussants to date Drchristopherjsmith (talk) 04:06, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Continued consideration--I can assure anyone questioning that the problems with the article are not intended, and that I do seek to bring the article wholly in compliance with community guidelines. However, I am actually wondering, and would welcome experts' opinions regarding, whether it might not be more appropriate to delete this article, and ask the person at my University responsible for our Wikipedia article to incorporate information on the VMC within that larger Texas Tech University article. Perhaps that would be more appropriate, and closer to Wikipedia intentions and standard practice? I welcome feedback on this. Drchristopherjsmith (talk) 04:26, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that I'm one of the most involved on this and I'm "on the fence" regarding an answer to your question. I lean towards it remaining as a condensed wikified separate article. I think that it is very enclyclopedic topic, and in an area where wikipedia needs more coverage. But I also think that it is borderline on having the type of coverage required to meet the wp:notability criteria which is a main condition for existence as a separate article. 211.181.131.34 has also been involved and nominated it for deletion. Perhaps others could weigh in. North8000 (talk) 11:43, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think incorporating it into the larger Texas Tech article is a fantastic idea. I honestly think information about VMC would be great if merged into the Texas Tech University#Campus section. That section talks about many different buildings on campus and VMC could be one them. Also, if merged, VMC could be turned into a redirect instead of being wholly deleted. IMO, there aren't enough 3rd-party sources out there to justify VMC having its own article. As I've already said I've found several sources within the article that don't validate anything. I just noticed today that 90% of the lead is repeated verbatim in the "History, naming and purpose" section. Also, my other concerns from the talk page --> "...the tone in the article reads like a brochure [especially with all the external links in the body], the dictionary source does not make VMC notable, examiner.com is blacklisted, and the article as a whole needs more third-party citations anyway to verify everything." Two of the sources that North8000 (talk · contribs) recently added (converted) are primary sources. They look much better in citation form than as an external link but primary sources don't help when it comes to showing a topic is notable. If you remove those, examiner.com, reference.com, and the other four problematic sources I listed on the talk page, that leaves four acceptable sources. Of the four acceptable ones, two (this one and this one) only tangentially mention VMC. Those sources contain career biographies about Dr. Smith, so they verify that he's the director of VMC but they are not verifying anything about VMC's history or what it has to offer. I don't think there should be an article with only two good sources about the subject of the article (rather than just Dr. Smith). 211.181.131.34 (talk) 09:29, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Texas Tech talk page Wordbuilder (talk · contribs) is one of the most active editors on that article. At the moment, I am the only one who is in favor of your suggestion, but if merging ends up being the consensus, he/she may be able to help you incorporate a nice four-to-six sentence paragraph about VMC using the four acceptable sources you already have. 211.181.131.34 (talk) 09:49, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sidebar note. I did some work on the article. One of the issues was that the material that was in the lead was not in the article; the corollary of that is that none of the rest of the article was summarized in the lead. As starting steps towards fixing that I copied the lead material into the article and then started condensing and reworking the lead. North8000 (talk) 10:04, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reference note: The link for the article "TTU Vernacular Music Center holds first multi-ensemble outreach meeting article" By: L.B. Higginbotham posted at examiner.com has been approved and is awaiting whitelisting. North8000 (talk) 12:31, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment / update I did a lot of work on the problem areas of the article. It still needs further improvement. I think that it is an enclyclopedic and useful article. I think it just squeaks by on sourcing for wp:notability. I'm one of the few/main folks working on the folk and world music articles and one of the folks working in those areas in Wikipedia. I believe that this article would be a good addition/retention. North8000 (talk) 12:56, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Article needs a clean up apart from its massive COI and promotional tone. The names of the nn people also need to be removed, including unfortunately, that of Dr Chris. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:10, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it has more of a "self written" than promotional/COI tone People inevitably write the same stuff that they communicate to the public which can sound promotional, even if they try to avoid such. I have fixed some of it and can fix some more. But to become really good, it will need more info from more independent sources. I think it has enough to squeak by wp:notability, but not enough to write a really good & complete article. North8000 (talk) 19:51, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 18:00, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Self-written is WP:COI. From WP:COI "Using material you have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is relevant." This "source" which is currently supposed to be validating Dr. Smith being the executive director of VMC is the most irrelevant reference being used. Aside from the fact that this link points to an article written by Dr. Smith about Irish music, it says nothing about Dr. Smith being an executive director. Also from WP:COI "Examples include links that point to commercial sites and to personal websites, and biographical material that does not significantly add to the clarity or quality of the article." In my previous response I already pointed out how the two acceptable biographical sources about Dr. Smith do not help establish VMC's notability (To be fair, Dr. Smith only added one of these sources with this edit; North8000 (talk · contribs) added the other one). For these reasons, added to the ones I've already talked about both here and on the talk page, I don't think this article passes WP:NOTABILITY or even sqeaks by. 211.181.131.34 (talk) 09:03, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: When I posted my July 24 response, there were 12 references. There are now 23 but 11 of them are primary sources. Adding more primary sources does not show notability. From WP:PRIMARY "Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them." I still like Dr. Smith's suggestion about redirecting to the larger Texas Tech article though. From WP:NOTABILITY "...if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article." 211.181.131.34 (talk) 09:03, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I gave my thoughts and worked on it some. And have seen you (211.181....) indicate your thoughts several times. I'm in a "wait and see" mode on this now. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 10:34, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep — The work that has been done on the article since it was first listed has improved it. However, if the consensus is to delete, then I support merging a concise version with Texas Tech University and redirecting Vernacular Music Center accordingly. →Wordbuilder (talk) 17:28, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Update I just added some additional references. My wiki-time for the next couple weeks is limited right now; so far I just added them as references to material already-in-the article which they support. When I get more more time I will integrate more material from the sources into the article. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:45, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 19:03, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lyon County League

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

This league is non-notable per WP:N. I found no significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 04:56, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I clicked on AfD in Twinkle when I meant to click prod. SL93 (talk) 04:57, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete while it is possible for high school sports leagues to be notable, I see no reason at this time to find that this particular league would be notable. Certainly the high schools are, but I find no reason to support notability on the scale that we require here for the league. Would change my position if notability were presented.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:24, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:30, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Comment: I see no reason it needs to be deleted. If you look at other KSHSAA sports leagues in Kansas, it is exactly the same as the others, except added history. Even though it has a PDF file, it was written by the commissioner of the league, who has all the files for the league. The file was put in the programs for the 2013 league tournament. This league SHOULD be notable, just like the rest. There are some KSHSAA leagues, on Wikipedia, I think don't need to be on here. But, are those are those up for deletion? No. Therefore, Lyon County League should be on here, as well. Thanks, CorkytheHornetfan (talk)15:51, 22 July 2013
- Comment They'll probably be up for deletion sometime soon too. I haven't reviewed them all, but there aren't any sources there either. But that doesn't matter, we're not discussing the other articles here, we're discussing this particular article here. If you can find some noteworthy sources or achievements, I'd change my position in a flash.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:46, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I nominated this for deletion because it crossed my path while patrolling new pages. I don't go out of my way to search for articles to delete. SL93 (talk) 22:03, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 17:58, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - in order to keep there needs to be evidence that this page is capable of meeting notability requirements. I have not found evidence that it can meet WP:N et al and nothing has been produced thus far in this AfD. The Whispering Wind (talk) 22:10, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Manafest. Courcelles 17:19, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stories Since Seventy Nine

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

Does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NALBUMS guidelines. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:14, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:14, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 00:23, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - with Manafest. I'm getting a couple of Bing hits that show there are a couple of sentences that can go into it, but they're mostly blogs. I also use the term "merge" loosely as to say "add a sentence about how it was originally going to be a side-project under the rapper's real name but then he decided to release it under the title Manafest" as long as you can find a link to that. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 16:09, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 17:42, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No consensus here. Bold redirecting, however, is still a valid choice. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:16, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Information (Classified album)

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

Rap albums that didn't chart and received little to no coverage. Nothing in these articles establishes notability. Beerest355 Talk 23:19, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:15, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 00:22, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - all of them to Classified (rapper). Pretty much all of the information that can be pulled for a given one is the track list except for a couple of singles...oh wait, none of them appear to have charted. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 16:06, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 17:41, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:19, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Startup ecosystem

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

This article cites no sources whatsoever and may be entirely Original Research or copyright infringement. Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 18:04, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Looks like a neologism to promote Grow VC. Hopefully, Vc20 (talk · contribs) will join the discussion to explain what he's been trying to accomplish. --Ronz (talk) 04:26, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Happy to join the discussion. I'm not intentionally trying to use any tactics here for promoting things, for what ever may come out that way, goes into not fully understanding the ins and outs of wikipedia policies, just trying to contribute. But it seems that anything I write, its considered wrong by default and are just deleted (even if Wikipedia own rules, now that I have tried to study those more, suggest that instead of deleting wikipedia suggest to first edit them to make them more general if the original writers text come out too biased). What comes to this specific article about startup ecosystem, I really have hard time understanding why it would not be relevant? Here is what google can find about the topic: https://www.google.com/search?q=startup+ecosystem so it should be relevant enough. I guess it could be combined with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entrepreneurial_ecosystem article (another word could be startup scene as used to explain one such ecosystem in Finland http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnish_startup_scene ), but as a whole it's highly relevant for those involved in a startup ecosystem, and trying to understand what it is, how it functions and how to go about thinking of contributing to improve one.

I'm open for any suggestions on how to improve the process of actually getting something to stick in here. Should it first be send for someone for approval or work together with someone else here, instead of spending countless hours coming up with article or other contribution, only to see it get deleted. --Vc20 (talk)

Comment: Your contributions are appreciated, but any and all additions to Wikipedia require references for the material its citing. WP is not the place for original research. Please include references to reliable sources for any contributions so that this process is not necessary.

In the meantime, you might want to use your Sandbox space to develop an article before posting it to the live site or use the article creation wizard to guide you.

Lastly, no one is challenging the information you posted (yet), but it does need to cited and credited for it to remain posted. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 16:48, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 00:24, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - Unless it can be substantiated with reliable sources. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 15:28, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete !vote by nominator struck as duplicative of nomination. You can add additional comments of course, but don't use that formatting as that's supposed to indicate !votes by separate contributors. postdlf (talk) 18:22, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Preliminary source searches indicate that the topic meets Wikipedia's threshold of notability. Clicking on the Google News Archive and Google Books links above provides many sources and potential sources. E.g. [4], [5], [6], [7]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:40, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 17:40, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 17:22, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yakuza (Irish band)

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

Doesnt meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSIC Murry1975 (talk) 16:34, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 00:25, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 17:40, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. The article claims international touring, but without a citation. Google search doesn't reveal much to suggest they meet WP:MUSIC. Bondegezou (talk) 12:16, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:19, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bali songwriting Invitational

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

An apparently promotional article, though some of the participants are notable. DGG ( talk ) 05:08, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 00:26, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 17:38, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It may have had notable participants, but notability is not inherited. If someone finds a source I've missed, feel free to ping me. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:18, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 19:02, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greatest Love Songs Vol. 666/Razorblade Romance/Deep Shadows and Brilliant Highlights

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

This is simply a box set that contains three albums that all have their own articles already. If need be, we could mention on each of those pages that they were released in this configuration, but I highly doubt this set in and of itself is worth its own article. Thoughts anyone? Lazy Bastard Guy 01:19, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - similar scenario as this AfD, except HIM's box set appears to have even less coverage and is a less plausible search term. Gong show 02:19, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 17:38, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:27, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Linden

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

Fails WP:JOURNALIST. She's written many stories, but little has been written about her. All of the sources in the article are written by the subject, except for two unreliable wordpress blogs. Pburka (talk) 00:58, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 15:38, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As per nom, fails WP:JOURNALIST. Softlavender (talk) 05:20, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 17:34, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Despite a "wall of references", there is nothing of substance to show notability. As the nom says, all references are articles by the subject herself and the three exceptions are blogs or in passing-mentions. Does not meet WP:JOURNALIST, WP:GNG, or WP:BIO. --Randykitty (talk) 09:18, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: I removed the prod, because I thought she may be notable, but am having second thoughts. Bearian (talk) 21:33, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Added additional references, subject has been published in a number of major publications as a journalist, was a staple of a VH1 music critic TV show Four on the Floor for a number of years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neptune's Trident (talk • contribs) 03:05, August 2, 2013 (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 delete. Stifle (talk) 19:02, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voicetext markup language

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

I found no significant coverage for this and the prod was contested. Fails WP:N. SL93 (talk) 16:13, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - proprietary (complete with TM symbol in the article) markup language that has received no coverage whatsoever in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 16:41, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:21, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:20, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BCODE

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

Re-nominating after previous closing admin expressed no concern with a rapid second nomination. Previous AfD closed as no consensus and had minimal participation.

This is an article about an apparently proprietary, branded SMS-based technology. The one included reference appears to be sourced from a third party press release, as appear to be most other coverage examples I can find online. It is important to note that bCODE is a (possibly defunct) company/product.

I believe this fails WP:N, WP:COMPANY, and comes close to running afoul of being an advertisement masquerading as an article. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 12:22, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:36, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:16, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 22:48, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Algorhythm (festival)

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

Inadequate sources for notability of this local college festival. DGG ( talk ) 04:50, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sources in the article, or sources in the world at large? Unscintillating (talk) 02:25, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

keep and stubify. The tech festival thing is quite common among the IITs and engineering colleges in India. Since Jamia Millia Islamia is one of the top (though not primarily engineering college) I think the article can be made encyclopedic. The current article has some puffery but I think this article can be made a valid stub. The Legend of Zorro 02:00, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 15:44, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy keep~~ I don't know why this article has been listed here and I don't know why it was relisted. I see no obvious problems with WP:V, and it is not a high-risk topic. Unscintillating (talk) 00:07, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - tech festivals in India aren't uncommon. I recall !voting keep on at least on at least one some time in the past. However, this one does not appear to meet notability guidelines. I can find no significant coverage about it in independent reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 16:45, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:14, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet any of the raft of guidelines, in fact the article does not make a reasoned claim to why it is notable so could be a CSD A7. LGA _talk^edits 00:42, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 21:06, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Final State

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

I came across this via speedy and had deleted it and its single, then thought better of it and undeleted it. There was some notability asserted here and I could find a source. I redirected the single to the main article, but I just can't find enough to show that this group ultimately passes WP:BAND. Rather than PROD it, I'm bringing it to AfD in the hopes that someone can find sources for this and flesh it out. I tried searching, but there's a huge language barrier here, as I don't speak French. I also had some trouble running into false positives and random searches since the band's name brought up more than a few science related pages. If anyone wants to userfy this, I'm all for it. I'm also willing to withdraw the nomination if some French-savvy editor can establish enough notability to keep this. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:27, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Lots of French-language coverage can be found if you search for "Final State groupe". A few examples: [8]; [9]; [10]; [11]. From these articles, it seem that they've played major festivals (including SXSW), have released a couple of albums, have received government support for touring abroad and have gathered some buzz. But surprisingly, they have also failed an AfD vote on fr.wikipedia.org [12] --Xuxl (talk) 11:08, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG, Seems the French WP aren't so keen on the article either. -
→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 01:15, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:06, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable enough right now. Wait a few years, then maybe. Suttungr (talk) 23:36, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Koala15 (talk) 14:22, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Massachusetts's 5th congressional district special election, 2013. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:22, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Addivinola

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

There's no indication of notability. Designate (talk) 01:32, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He's running for office and is the only Republican by far to run for Markey's seat. I was going to add more info later.-- Billybob2002 (talk) 01:46, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If he got the nomination, would that make him notable? -- Billybob2002 (talk) 01:48, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. To answer Billybob's question, the only thing that would make Addivinola notable is significant coverage in reliable sources (see WP:GNG). I'm not finding anything but a few passing mentions. DoctorKubla (talk) 07:25, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would THIS be enough for notability?

No. "Reliable sources" indicate major media outlets, and WP:GEOSCOPE indicates that some ought to not be local ones ... a local blog site definitely doesn't qualify. WP:POLITICIAN specifically boils down to officeholders; nominees are not presumptively notable absent meeting the GNG. Make mine Delete. Ravenswing 16:47, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You shouldn't expect a race that is a local race to get national attention. Why would the national media cover a race that the rest of the nation can't vote in? I'm not from the state, but those who are not into politics from other states wouldn't care. -- Billybob2002 (talk) 00:30, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no, we wouldn't expect a local race to attract national attention. That is -- I imagine -- a factor in why the drafters of WP:POLITICIAN set forth presumptive notability only for winning officeholders, not for candidates (never mind candidates who haven't even secured a party nomination!), in political races. As far as whether people would care or not, the whole underpinning of WP:N, the GNG and indeed WP:V is "Has the world noticed the subject?" If the answer is "No," then the subject isn't notable. Ravenswing 06:08, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Local races can attract national attention: see Jim Graves who nearly unseated incumbent Michele Bachmman. But Graves was already somewhat notable as an executive. We also have an article for Sean Bielat, who got a strong push from the national GOP and won a respectable showing against a vulnerable Barney Frank. Those two are notable even though they lost. Addivinola isn't notable for his job, and he's almost certain to lose in a landslide. We just don't have an article for everyone who runs in a congressional election. Notability isn't about what's interesting: it's about our ability to write the article thoroughly and neutrally, which requires independent sources to look into the subject and tell us what the story is. Local sources usually just reprint the candidate's press releases. —Designate (talk) 11:00, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, some races get national attention. Just because a race doesn't get national attention, does not mean he's not notable. -- Billybob2002 (talk) 21:32, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free, then, to demonstrate the subject's notability. The top searches turn up (in order) his website, his Facebook page, his LinkedIn page, his Twitter feed -- a sequence that's usually a certain sign of non-notability -- press releases, blogs, and the entry on ratemyprofessors.com for his teaching work at my hometown community college. There's a sprinkling of local news mentions concerning his various unsuccessful attempts at public office over the last few years, if you dig far enough ... and that's it. Failure of WP:GEOSCOPE with the rest. Ravenswing 01:36, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:05, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN and has not received significant coverage in reliable sources. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 03:13, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect- To Massachusetts's 5th congressional district special election, 2013, where he (insert - is) already suitably mentioned. Unique search term; save the reader the search result that will land them there anyway. Restore once notability and sourcing guidelines are met. Dru of Id (talk) 17:08, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 21:08, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kuala Mount Park

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

Apart from its stylistic faults, the article seems to have no basis in reality, perhaps a joke page? Jeremy Malcolm (talk) 14:05, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - After several source and general internet searches, not finding any information to even verify that this supposed park exists. Seems to be a WP:HOAX. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:15, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I did find a few hits for a "Kuala Mount Park" but it appears to not be the one mentioned here. Absolutely zilch relevant results, so it's most probably a hoax. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:15, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unsourced, and unsourceable. Modern day theme parks should not be invisible to a web search, yet this one appears to have managed to esacape all notice. Especially given the claims about the rollercoasters, and the large group of coaster fanatics that travel the world to ride them, it's just not credible that this place exists without any visible web presence. -- Whpq (talk) 15:36, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 21:09, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fashionography

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

Article about a non-notable neologism. I can't find any reliable sources, the only mention seems to be a site/blog by the same name. It was also very likely created by the person the article claims coined the term. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:04, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How can I delete thee? Let me count the ways: dicdef, promotional, neologism, lack of notability, potentially false text (the only other real ref was to an old Harper's Bazaar which used it in a completely different sense). Mangoe (talk) 13:56, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The term is used fleetingly in a few sources, but not finding coverage about the term itself. If sources turn up in this discussion to counter this notion, please notify me at my talk page. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:58, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 16:12, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oncology Reports

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

PROD declined on the grounds that it's indexed. That does not address the issue of notability. This is a journal published by its editor in chief, not a major or even independent publishing house, and the article has never had a single independent source to establish notability. Being indexed does not confer notability (still less reliability), some outright junk gets indexed. Notability is about reliable independent coverage of the article subject itself, Wikipedia is not a directory (although that's debatable in some areas by now). Guy (Help!) 12:19, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, is indexed by major and selective databases (Medline, Scopus, CAS, CSA, and many others), has impact factor, and thus meets WP:NJOURNALS with flying colors. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 12:35, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, I don't get what "being published by it's EiC / not major/independant house" has to do with anything (and it's not, it's published by Spandidos Publications, it just happened to be owned by the EiC, which is somewhat unusual, but has no relevance to its notability). It might affect it's reliability (although in this case, all the SP journals happen to be well regarded, and all have impact factors). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 12:55, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Sizeable impact factor, indexed in selective, major databases (not just all-inclusive databases like DOAJ or Google Scholar that, indeed, might include some "junk"). As Headbomb (welcome back!) says: meets WP:NJournals with flying colors. And by the way, there is an independent source (to nothing less than the Journal Citation Reports). --Randykitty (talk) 12:54, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious keep for the obvious reasons - indexed in major league, yet selective databases. Several of these databases are Thomson Reuter's just for starters. That alone would make it a keeper, but wait there's more. It has an impact factor, and is indexed in other major databases, as has been stated above. By the way, the selective databases are considered to be independent reliable sources for academic journals. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 06:02, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are some areas where the basic guideline is difficult to apply without some interpretation, and the general area of journals magazines and newspapers both academic and otherwise is among them. Fortunately for academic journals we have a good proxy: the coverage by major secondary services is the functional equivalent of the RS for N requirement. DGG ( talk ) 17:49, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 21:11, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Adams (footballer)

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

He has not played a professional senior game at club or international level. Article fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 12:10, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 12:10, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 12:10, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 12:10, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep based on the 3 OFC Champions League appearances, IF there is a source for this. I should note that anyone looking for sources may come across an Aussie Rules player by the same name, who plays for Swan Districts Football Club, and received a lot of coverage for an incident where he was assaulted in an apparently unprovoked attack. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:01, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I dont believe there are any professional clubs taking part in the OFC Champions League.Simione001 (talk) 00:49, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But it is a major continental competition. If it's the group stages and/or the knockout stages that he played in, to me at least, that confers some kind of notability; if it's the qualifiers, then definitely not. That's why I've said weak keep. This is yet another area in which our notability guidelines simply don't mention things, one way or another. :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:48, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It has to be a match between two professional clubs in a competitive match.Simione001 (talk) 10:03, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league (the OFC Champions League is hardly a fully pro competition) and has not received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:39, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. No disrespect, but I'd hardly say the Oceania Champions League is a "major" competition... Giant Snowman 10:42, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per GS. As much as I love Oceanian football consensus that the OFCCL is a "major" tournament could open the floodgates for lots of articles on non-international players from very minor amateur leagues. Fenix down (talk) 13:54, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the subject fails WP:GNG, as he hasn't received in-depth coverage in reliable sources. As noted before me, he also fails WP:GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mentoz86 (talk • contribs) 20:57, 2 August 2013‎

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. Stifle (talk) 19:03, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KLibido

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

This subject does not meet established guidelines for general notability, as there is no evidence of non-trivial coverage from reliable third parties. AMFMUHFVHF90922 (talk) 08:55, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 July 26. Snotbot t • c » 10:27, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — the development seems halted since 2006; a passing mention in fsf.com plus a press release are not sufficient to satisfy notability guidelines WP:GNG for multiple in-depth reliable sources. Toffanin (talk) 08:32, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — The program isn't dead yet. (Neither is usenet) This is just from source forge Soureceforge Stats Doesn't include the many repositories. Utefs (talk) 09:11, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Utefs, thanks for dropping by. Generally speaking, not being "dead yet" doesn't strike a strong case for notability. Do you have any evidence of this subject receiving non-trivial coverage from reliable third party sources? That's what we're looking for here, that's all that is needed to sustain a well-nourished Wikipedia article. AMFMUHFVHF90922 (talk) 04:13, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I was able to find this which isn't a lot. The same text apepars in this book. Thats' not enough coverage to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:08, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was userfy. The article may be moved back into the mainspace or submitted to AFC when and if the subject meets notability guidelines in the future. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 03:26, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been userfied to the page creator's userspace. You can find it at User:Crickz99/Piotr Hallmann. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 03:31, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Piotr Hallmann

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

Notability not established - has not fought in any top tier organization. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:23, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:23, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Keep or~~ Userfy - As he is currently signed with a top-tier promotion (the UFC) and has a fight booked. I generally don't favor deleting articles for active fighters that have the potential to pass WP:NMMA in the future (WP:CRYSTALBALL, I know...) but at least I would like to see someone WP:USERFY the article and recreate it if he gets three fights. Luchuslu (talk) 13:07, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy Subject currently has no top tier fights so he fails WP:NMMA and he lacks the significant coverage required for GNG. Assuming he'll get 3 UFC fights is clearly CRYSTALBALL, but since he may get them I'd rather save someone the trouble of recreating the article if he does.Mdtemp (talk) 14:40, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is ridiculous, there are at least 100 articles about lesser known fighters and nobody is against them. The person (not "subject") is signed by the biggest organization in the world (multi-fight deal) and has a fight coming up. In http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Mixed_martial_arts/MMA_notability there is a criteria called "Subject of multiple independent articles/documentaries--articles should be from national or international media, not just local coverage." which is definitely fulfilled if you look at Google for a few seconds.Crickz99 (talk) 17:40, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know this is your first article, but you may want to review some of Wikipedia's policies. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS explains that each article is evaluated on its own merits, WP:NOTNEWSPAPER explains that routine sports coverage does not show notability, and WP:NMMA explains what the notability criteria is for MMA fighters. Papaursa (talk) 18:34, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy I agree with the previous userfy comments--the subject does not currently seem to meet any notability guidelines, but he may if he stays with the UFC long enough and I'd prefer to save the work already done (at least for the time being). Saving it to Crickz99's sandbox seems reasonable to me. Papaursa (talk) 18:34, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 21:13, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shanta Rani Sharma

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

Subject does not meet either WP:GNG or WP:ACADEMIC, the relevant subject-specific notability guideline. Subject has very little published academic work and no significant reviews of the work (see the article talk page for more info). Seems to be a fairly standard academic, rather than one with the extra notability we require for a WP article. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:28, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Provisional delete. Only a few cites on GS. Probably too early. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:07, 27 July 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Delete - Subject fails to meet notability guideleines for academics per WP:ACAD. There is insufficient third-party coverage of the subject and, in a career spanning 35 years at the same college so far, her published work does not amount to much. Recognised notable academics or historians have produced far more. Her last offering cited in the article dates back to 2001 viz. http://academic.research.microsoft.com/Search?query=Shanta%20Rani%20Sharma. She has published no book since her 1993 doctoral thesis was edited and published as a book in 1996 which received very limited coverage in academia - in fact, as stated in the article, just one write-up, five years later, also in 2001 (see talk page and the source cited above). It is customary for Delhi University to give some long-standing lecturers at its constituent colleges the title of Assistant or Associate Professor for the university-related work they do, and she has been at the same college since 1978 -http://www.du.ac.in/index.php?id=388 - but she is not a full-fledged university professor, which is something different, though even being that would require evidence of notability for a WP article. Basically, she is doing what all those in her position at affiliated colleges are paid to do. With retirement drawing closer, subject has received minimal coverage to date. And being a Ph.D in today's world is not, by and in itself, a reason or qualification for an article here. AFAICT subject fails WP:GNG.Zananiri (talk) 18:59, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I cannot find the keep arguments to be based in policy. Stifle (talk) 19:04, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gamestar (Australia)

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

Article about a gaming magazine. There are three references: one to a LinkedIn profile of a former contributor (not a reliable source and in any case, nothing that indicates any notability), one to the Sydney Morning Herald (only an in-passing mention of the magazine), and one to a source that basically just confirms that it existed. The article contains a long list of contributors, none of which appears to be notable (not that it would matter much if they were, as notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. There are also three external links, two to library catalogs (again just confirming that the thing existed and WorldCat shows that only 2 libraries in Australia hold this magazine), the third one to the Tumblr page of a magazine collector (not allowable under WP:ELNO#11). The magazine existed only for a brief period (1995-1995) and apparently failed to make much of an impact. Does not meet WP:GNG, hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 05:08, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG per nom. Ansh666 06:45, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Although unless a miracle happens and the publisher hands me the keys to their archives and I get phone calls from former contributors, how can I stop you from deleting? That's ALL the information ANYONE can find. I seriously challenge someone to find more, NOTABLE sources. (And "failed to make much of an impact" may be true sales wise, but not reader wise.)- CertifiableNut (talk) 10:01, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While it may certainly be true that the magazine made an impact "reader wise", you have to realize that this is intended to be a serious encyclopedia and we therefore need objective sources for this. Keys to archives and phone calls from former contributors would not help a bit, because those would be primary sources, that are not independent of the subject itself. What is needed are third party sources confirming notability. --Randykitty (talk) 12:46, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Largely on procedural grounds: Google searching a magazine that was briefly published in the mid-1990s is not a good way of seeking to determine notability given that this is the pre-internet saturation era. I'd suggest looking for references in online newspaper articles and relevant trade publications first. Nick-D (talk) 10:59, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Either the newspapers/etc are gone, impossible to find or each newspaper comes with ungodly fees/subscriptions before you can even READ them. We only have 7 states, and I doubt all of those covered the magazine too. - CertifiableNut (talk) 11:12, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can read comprehensive and recent newspaper archives (such as Factivia) for free through both my local library and the National Library of Australia's websites, and everyone in Australia should have the same access given that the NLA gives out membership cards online for free. Nick-D (talk) 11:48, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment I don't really get the "procedural" part. Nobody can prove a negative. No AfD nomination would ever be possible if one had to prove that no sources exist. WP:BEFORE requires that one tries to find sources as best as possible. If they cannot be found, then the onus is on those !voting "keep" to provide a good reasoning. But just saying that something might be out there is not what I call good reasoning. this magazine existed only for a brief period. I cannot have had much success, or the publisher would not have pulled the plug so fast. That suggests to me that it is highly likely that no independent sources exist. Of course, as said, there is no proof that such sources really don't exist. However, our common policy in cases like this, where sources cannot be found, is to delete and re-create if ever good sources do crop up at a later date. --Randykitty (talk) 14:01, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - My procedural concern is that you've looked for sources only in places where there's no reasonable expectation that sources could be found, and not consulted more viable potential sources. Nick-D (talk) 11:16, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - I've looked at every place that I physically was able to consult and can reasonably be expected to look. What do you want, only allow people that are in Australia and have certified that they have browsed through paper archives to take this to AfD? I have satisfied WP:BEFORE. If there are sources that I missed despite that, please give them. If not, there's no procedural concern. According to your reasoning, no article on a subject that pre-dates the Internet could ever be brought to AfD. --Randykitty (talk) 11:35, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG, no reliable sources to demonstrate notability. Agree with Randykitty, he has fulfilled checking criteria of WP:BEFORE so there is no such thing as a procedural keep.The article can be moved to Wikipedia:Article Incubator or userspace where editors with access to print archives have the opportunity to bring it up to scratch 188.222.98.201 (talk) 07:27, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep. Obvious sock was obvious, non-admin closure. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:18, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Moloko Temo

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

Speedy keep - AFD was created by a block-evading sock-puppeteer. Stalwart111 06:17, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per WP:SK if the nominator is indeed banned (I have no opinion on that), merge to Longevity claims otherwise. GregorB (talk) 08:20, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move to close - nominator has indeed been indef'd as a sock-puppet. Stalwart111 10:35, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep as POINTy nomination by sockpuppet. NAC Beerest355 Talk 13:56, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Berner (supercentenarian)

AfDs for this article:

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

Speedy keep - AFD was created by a block-evading sock-puppeteer. Stalwart111 06:17, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move to close - nominator has been indef'd as a sock-puppet. Stalwart111 10:08, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep. Obvious sock was obvious; non-admin closure. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:12, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Israel

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

This article doesn't even have any references; only external links. She died ten years ago. Delete for lack of evidence over notability. Pampo is as non-notable as Mariam Amash, Sudhakar Chaturvedi, or Sant Kaur Bajwa, and this article should be deleted. User:Walsh thehiker (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Speedy keep - AFD was created by a block-evading sock-puppeteer. Stalwart111 06:17, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move to close - nominator has been indef'd as a sock-puppet. Stalwart111 10:09, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep. Obvious sock was obvious; non-admin closure. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:12, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sudhakar Chaturvedi

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

Chaturvedi is only a claimant to the title of the world's oldest living person and oldest living man. Neither Chaturvedi, Mariam Amash, Ma Pampo, Sant Kaur Bajwa, etc. deserve an article. Delete this article. User:Walsh thehiker (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)74.78.72.209 (talk) 05:37, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Obvious keep; the article is well-cited and of sufficient notability independent of longevity. The nominator seems to be on a rampage nominating old people for deletion, but it's ironic to see that the stated reason for deletion is comparison with a bunch of articles that do exist. Anyway, all that is irrelevant, because this person is notable in own right (the article doesn't even go into that much detail about his age, it's mostly about the other things he's known for). Shreevatsa (talk) 04:53, 26 July 2013 (UTC

Most of the references are from India, and the man is not known as a philosopher outside of India. He is a claimant to the world's oldest living man/person. There is no evidence that he is, or deserves an article. I am not on a rampage deleting old peoples' articles. Misao Okawa and Bernice Madigan absolutely deserve an article. They are among the verified oldest living people. The other listed articles are not in this category and have no place on Wikipedia. User:Walsh thehiker (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Speedy keep - AFD was created by a block-evading sock-puppeteer. Stalwart111 06:18, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move to close - nominator has been indef'd as a sock-puppet. Stalwart111 10:08, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep. Obvious sock was obvious; non-admin closure. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:12, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sant Kaur Bajwa

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

Like Mariam Amash and Sudhakar Chaturvedi Bajwa is just another claimant to the title of the world's oldest verified person, while not being verified and not deserving a title of their own. Delete. User:Walsh thehiker (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Note This nomination appears to have not been done correctly. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 04:22, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How has it not been done correctly? I put {{ AFD }} on the article and then put {{ Wikipedia : Article for deletion/Sant Kaur Bajwa }} on the AfD page? How is it wrong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Walsh thehiker (talk) 05:22, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is more to it than just copying and pasting the templates. Whatever you did messed up the Afd page and I've had to request Admin assistance to fix it. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 05:34, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What are the steps? It looks like just copying-and-pasting. The afd page doesn't say any more than that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.78.72.209 (talk) 05:44, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - AFD was created by a block-evading sock-puppeteer. Stalwart111 06:18, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move to close - nominator has been indef'd as a sock-puppet. Stalwart111 10:08, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep. Obvious sock was obvious, non-admin closure. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:17, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mariam Amash

AfDs for this article:

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

Speedy keep - AFD was created by a block-evading sock-puppeteer. Stalwart111 06:18, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move to close - nominator has been indef'd as a sock-puppet. Stalwart111 10:07, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. postdlf (talk) 16:43, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Half Serious

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

abg 03:27, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment Lack of rationale. (The same editor also flagged this article about a film as a BLP.) There is press coverage today about a court case regarding this film, which may go some way to evidence of notability. AllyD (talk) 07:22, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've stubbifyed the article due to extensive copyvio problems, and added some refs. Given that the nominator marked the article for speedy deletion under invalid criteria, sent it to AfD without giving a rationale, and then added a series of inapplicable maintenance tags, all in the space of a couple of minutes, I think we can speedy close this as a bad-faith, or at least misguided, nomination. DoctorKubla (talk) 07:53, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is clearly against deleting. Whether this should be merged or not can take place with a second discussion, elsewhere. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:25, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

VisualEditor

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

I can't see that this has reached 'notability'; it isnt standalone software. It is part of MediaWiki, is only deployed on some Wikipedias, and it is only because of the notability of Wikipedia that there are PR pieces about this feature. It is a paragraph in the article about MediaWiki and Wikipedia; not a standalone article. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:32, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NOTINHERITED. Ansh666 06:44, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per below. Somehow that didn't cross my mind. Ansh666 22:02, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - ~~and redirect to either Visual editor or Mediawiki. Ansh666 20:18, 28 July 2013 (UTC)~~[reply]
Looking at the article now, I'll go keep (or redirect per Carrite...I wish). Ansh6 6 6 17:44, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~ (see comment way below) to MediaWiki for the time being. If the secondary coverage adds up, it might still become a notable standalone topic. GregorB (talk) 08:07, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to MediaWiki. Per source searches, the topic doesn't appear have received enough coverage in reliable sources to qualify for a standalone article (WP:GNG). However, this information would enhance the MediaWiki article. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:03, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Leaning keep~~ per WP:NTEMP - Changed my initial !vote above (now struck & indented). Upon review of User talk:Widefox's sources below, these reliable sources provide significant coverage: The Economist, PC World, ~~DNA~~. ~~Also, here's coverage from The Guardian~~. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:49, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

user:Northamerica1000, those sources you have picked are not suitable. The dna article is a a blog post written by wikipedians; the guardian piece is a copy&paste of WP:VE. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 21:47, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~ to Mediawiki. Thanks for the ping via notification. ~~Changing my !vote in finality to merge.~~ Struck and indented my previous !vote above. Struck those two sources in my !vote above, and thanks for the info. about this. These two articles both provide significant coverage: The Economist, PC World. However, WP:NOTNEWS is generally applicable in this case, so a merge ~~would~~ may be more in order. Per WP:PRESERVE, the information should be retained in the encyclopedia in some form. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:09, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Now undecided. Sorry to have to strike again (above), but the article has been significantly expanded, and I haven't assessed the new sources yet. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:11, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sources The Verge #2 dailydot.com Engadget aosabook.org The Register The Atlantic The economist techzone360 softpedia h-online pcworld The Verge Ubergizmo Ghacks The Next Web techgeek.com.au ciol.com Webpronews pcadvisor.co.uk
- not RS secondary: iamdigitalnative shellypalmer DNA India technology.org bristolwireless wikipediocracy thewikipedianprimary spamblocked non-RS The Guardian Widefox; talk 10:52, 26 July 2013 (UTC) (updated Widefox; talk 23:03, 28 July 2013 (UTC) )[reply]
~~Weak~~ Keep (article creator) WP:DEMOLISH That's enough secondary sources for a full standalone article (too large to be merged given a chance) WP:GNG. Don't think NOTINHERITED is obvious per se apply as sources are about this topic (and MediaWiki, en.WP) and it is a distinct, notable software subproject/component (cf Adblock Plus (and all the browser extensions and Category:Software add-ons) Init Windows PowerShell V8 (JavaScript engine) SpiderMonkey (JavaScript engine) etc - WP:OTHERSTUFF applies of course). ~~There's scope for~~ now a full article: browser support profile is different, reaction/acceptance, use in sizable parents MediaWiki Wikipedia English Wikipedia History of Wikipedia Template:Wikipedia (history section), 103 files in commons, with standalone article having overlapping scope to parents, although take point about how tied to MediaWiki it is. (note any merge/redirect should take account of this formerly being a cross-space redirect). Widefox; talk 10:52, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The current coverage might be argued to fall under WP:NOTNEWS. It has to be not only reasonably wide, but also reasonably continuous (as opposed to episodic). It is far from clear whether VisualEditor will receive any coverage a year or two down the road or not. GregorB (talk) 11:18, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly the rollout announcements might, changed to weak keep. It is lacking a couple of articles on the ~~technology~~, ~~feedback~~, or effect on WP. WP:NOTTEMPORARY would discount the future coverage aspect though. Widefox; talk 13:37, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After adding the partnership details with Wikia, and feedback from editors I'm quite happy to go back to full keep on balance. Some IT project articles can surface as news sources, being able to have an article to include published feedback is, I believe a healthy thing. Although I understand the concerns of other editors based on NEWS, it would seem a bit early to merge a topic that's not going away with significant coverage. I believe this topic should be handled as any other topic, but nom based on software subprojects not being notable is flawed. In order to keep perceptions of WP being NPOV about this topic, as the nom is a committee member of the Wikimedia Australia, extra care should be taken to decide based on policy, standalone software is irrelevant to notability. We shouldn't bend over to keep it, or shoot ourselves in the foot to delete either. One source I found has forked it to incorporate in their own wiki anyhow, as is common with open source projects (cf javascript engines above). Widefox; talk 12:32, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Components of software product can become notable, and the line between product and component isnt a straight one. (e.g. SpiderMonkey is a product foremost). Our policy for this is NOTINHERIT, and IMO VisualEditor is a long way from standalone notability. The press coverage that I have seen has been about VE within the context of its (planned) deployment on Wikipedia; not as a standalone entity worthy of separate consideration. As such, this should be covered as a chapter of the Wikipedia & MediaWiki articles until it has proven to be a useful reusable component that grows a life of its own. If it is a very large chapter, it should be a separate subtopic named "MediaWiki VisualEditor" or similar. (p.s. I'd love to see that source claiming to have forked it for a different wiki.) John Vandenberg ^(chat) 21:38, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree sourcing lacks independence from parent topics to strongly resist merge based on independent notability/size at time of nom. The article is now more than a stub, or a paragraph in one parent. A seamless component of MediaWiki it isn't either - (see browser support for separate constraints on users, and constraints on type of page editable). No idea what you're saying about the SpiderMonkey "product" (or "software product"). "product" is orthogonal to standalone vs component so irrelevant - no line between or mutual exclusion (but I digress). As for forks and usage outside of WP, (open source would make limiting deployment to Wikipedias difficult, or guessing it won't be used elsewhere) presumably Wikia is the elephant in the room for starters... it was this parsoid fork, there's others Wikia VisualEditor fork and branches , and chatter [13], openstreetmap and users asking how to install theverge comment or use just VE in their project without MW. This is WP:DEMOLISH / WP:DEADLINE vs WP:CRYSTAL / Wikipedia:Merging The delete nom is 1/2 flawed (subproject) 1/2 outdated (full article too large) due to article improvements a merge nom is more appropriate (which I can understand why one has now sprung up) . Regards Widefox; talk 23:03, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This page has had coverage in external sources here and here among other places. It therefore fits the notability guideline and should be kept as such.155blue (talk) 13:59, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to MediaWiki. Is there coverage? Yes. Is it independently notable? Not in the slightest. Most of the coverage violates WP:NOTNEWS as being stuff about its release. 155blue's sources both fall into that trap, as do the majority of Widefox's sources (many of which fall a long way short of RS anyway, such as Wikipediocracy and Examiner) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:15, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
merge to Mediawiki. Without the unnecessary quote and excessive usage details there's hardly any content, and it's never likely to grow beyond a stub (or if it could, because it becomes a notable standalone product, the article will no doubt be restarted).--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 20:27, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree - the quote captures the project motivation, and as a primary source I quoted it. Improved/Expanded - I believe it now is on a better footing to be rescued. Widefox; talk 13:24, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Widefox; talk 13:59, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Visual editor. Redirecting to MediaWiki would be a mistake because visual editor (with a space) is a widely used generic term (the first visual editor may have been vi). This is a plausible search term and it would be confusing for editors to find themselves at a page about Wikipedia when searching for information about visual editors. Pburka (talk) 19:08, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I redirected visualeditor to visual editor. Don't think that's a concern now due to the capital V. Widefox; talk 23:03, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per my comment at Talk:MediaWiki. We could always add a note in italics at the beginning should readers find this confusing.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:23, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Must.........not..........make.........joke........about.........redirecting.........to.........Guinea pig....... Augh!!! Carrite (talk) 04:33, 28 July 2013 (UTC) [reply]

My on-topic comment is redirect target isn't obvious, as split between MediaWiki#Editing interface, Wikipedia, Wikia, and the original cross-project space redirect, but I'm sure the content can be split and diluted. Carrite My offtopic isn't Guinea pig, but Technological fix - the challenge to foster/recruit and retain editors isn't the technology, it's the culture around the progressive maturity/complexity of editors, processes and article space. Want to expand editor participation? sure, but cite above single-handed WP:CARCASS to keep a major project having an NPOV article on the pursuit alive. Merge it before it has a chance. Sure it could be merged. Sure it could be kept. Expect new users to bother finding the topic in large articles or project space? Who cares as long as we follow our rules. Want a place where experienced (and new) editors can get an overview in a location they can have a say over (obviously referenced). This is your space and moment. This was it. The challenge is re-thinking the culture and processes to be proportionate, not only with new editors to deliver an attitudinal fix. Widefox; talk 23:03, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Too soon. Not enough sources p b p 19:23, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. The article has been fixed up with good sources. Alternately, redirect to guinea pig per carrite (/snark). Bearian (talk) 17:28, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's improved since nom [14] (using the sources above), !voters above may want to consider the now non-stub version. Widefox; talk 21:57, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And it now looks dangerously close to an advertising piece. And STILL doesn't establish independent notability. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:11, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I added a reception/risk to lead. Does that help? Feel free to tag or mark/adjust for advert/NPOV. How do you propose to shoehorn the biggest (multifaceted/complex/controversial) project/change to the #6 popular site into one MW/WP/Wikia article? Seems notable to me. Widefox; talk 12:15, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article is now developed to a point in which merge to MediaWiki - already a rather big article - is not necessarily a good idea anymore. So, while this is purely a technical reason not to merge, I believe it is still valid, and that's why I'm striking out my initial position ("Merge", see above). The reason I'm not changing it to "Keep" is that I'm still far from convinced in continued notability (= beyond WP:NOTNEWS) of the subject in the future, as already argued. GregorB (talk) 11:36, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, although the project size and importance seems to be notable as covered by sources. Although WP:NOTTEMPORARY doesn't need continued notability, there's the one online book source on Mediawiki that covers it. (WP:AVOIDSPLIT wasn't on purpose - done due to already created cross-wiki redirect). Widefox; talk 12:15, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Mediawiki. The topic is not independently notable and the sources are generally not independent of the topic. I see that the article is already long; some of the (un-sourced or poorly sourced) content can be moved to WP:VisualEditor, especially that which cannot be merged into Mediawiki. I also agree with Jasper Deng's comments. - tucoxn\^talk 23:49, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 21:17, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Above Death: In God We Trust

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

I found no significant coverage per WP:NF. As a straight to video film in a country that is not well known for films, this film would likely need to be something special. SL93 (talk) 02:18, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 02:20, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 02:20, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete for failure to meet WP:NF. Film has been around for 10 years and no coverage is to be found (unless in another language). Best alternative I can think of is perhaps a redirect to film's star Pete Edochie... and a later redirect to film's director should he ever have an article here. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:50, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Schmidt. Jason from nyc (talk) 14:12, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. WP:SNOW. postdlf (talk) 16:43, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pseudoarchaeology

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

This is a surprisingly biased article. I'm no fan of Von Daniken, but the very title of this article screams overt bias. For the sake of neutrality, this article needs to be gutted or just redone from scratch, hence the nomination for deletion. If it were called something along the lines of "Alternative Archaeology"---or even "Fringe" would be comparatively better---and then the points regarding this topic's treatment by mainstream academia were given its own section, then this article would be more neutral. Otherwise this article's clear bias is embarrassingly on par with content expected from Reddit. Frauhistorikerin (talk) 01:45, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - The subject is quite notable and has numerous available sources. Bias in an article is not a valid reason for deletion and AfD is not cleanup. - Mr X 02:05, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: much as I hate citing WP:NOTCLEANUP, it would seem to apply here. Seems like lots of WP:RS, though no comment on bias since the article is quite long and wordy. I also note that the title follows WP:COMMONNAME, as mentioned on the talkpage. Ansh666 06:43, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a notable subject with plenty of sources.--Charles (talk) 09:08, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources indicate this is a notable topic: books like Feder's and the listed articles establish notability. The title is a well-known term. If the nominator's main concern is with the article name, there are procedures for discussing that. And WP:FRINGE makes it clear that articles on fringe ideas should concentrate on accurately reporting the opinion of mainstream experts, e.g. if all the mainstream sources say it's nonsense, it's ok for the article to say so. Despite what the proposer thinks, there is no requirement for an article to be largely favorable towards its subject. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:43, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "the very title of this article screams overt bias". Er, really? Wikipedia reports the terms used in the literature. In this case, many appropriate sources are included that explicitly describe "Pseudoarchaeology". Moreover, I am not convinced that there is significant bias within the article. Ceratinly it is rather verbose and would benefit from copy-editing, but I think that the sources are given appropriate weighting. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:06, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 16:45, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chilandy

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

Non existant place. I did not find place with such name in classifier of administrative units of Kyrgyzstan [15][16] (this classifier contains all administrative divisions and places of country). Anatoliy (Talk) 14:51, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kyrgyzstan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete Maps give this name to a very minor peak in the area which doesn't appear to be settled. Mangoe (talk) 00:01, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 00:18, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 01:45, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete Non-existent may be a bit strong, but until someone can come up with something that shows that this is more than a piece up empty land, we have no article. CitiCat^♫ 05:53, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 15:46, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ak-Ityk

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

Non existant place. I did not find place with such name in classifier of administrative units of Kyrgyzstan [17][18] (this classifier contains all administrative divisions and places of country). I found only Ак-Оток (Ak-Otok or Ak-Ötök), but it located in Batken Raion, and this place is located in Kadamzhay Raion (according the map). Anatoliy (Talk) 14:44, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kyrgyzstan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

hmmmm Geonames gives a location for this one (again, not at the spot given in the article) but it appears to be nothing more than a house and a weir, certainly not a village full of shepherds or vacationing mayors. Mangoe (talk) 00:13, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 00:19, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 01:45, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable, limited verification, perhaps original research Jason from nyc (talk) 14:10, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Assertions of notability were not substantiated by sources nor supported by guidelines. postdlf (talk) 16:45, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Milagros J. Cordero

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

I'm not seeing any achievement by this pediatrician sufficiently outstanding enough for an article. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:56, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - She is the founder and President of Team Therapy Services For Children (ITT’S for Children), a professional group that assists and empowers parents to develop a better understanding of the strengths and needs of their children and to enhance their children's development to the full extent of their capability. Tony the Marine (talk) 21:01, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. While ITT's no doubt a worthy organization, it doesn't appear to satisfy WP:ORG, so if you can't inherit from a notable group, you doubly can't for a non-notable one. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:44, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I found no coverage that can be used. SL93 (talk) 00:11, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Her work with children and accomplishments are notable. ([19]) Antonio Martin (talk) 01:22, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Her ground-breaking therapies are notable and therefore it is appropriate for Wikipedia. Pr4ever (talk) 22:24, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: None of the keeps are based on the notability guideline for biographies. SL93 (talk) 22:43, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

....and that continues to be true. No matter how many people come here and assert that she is so respected and her contributions are so important, it doesn't help to keep the article. We need EVIDENCE from reliable independent sources that she is important in her field or that her contributions are notable. I could not find any such evidence, and no one has presented any. --MelanieN (talk) 19:02, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No doubt she is a fine woman and a fine doctor. But that's not enough for inclusion at Wikipedia; the subject must be notable, as defined at WP:BIO or WP:GNG. I found literally no coverage from independent reliable sources in a search, and none is offered at the article. Also I found no publications at Google Scholar, so she doesn't pass WP:ACADEMIC either. The article reads like pure promotion for the clinic she runs - and for the speech and hearing program she subscribes to. --MelanieN (talk) 02:52, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There are several thousand Google hits on her name, with most of them (some repetitions) referring to this person. The article already cites a fair number of sources linking her to OT and other studies. As either member or head of a number (some 5-6) NGO, non-profit, allied health, professional, civic, and government boards she is clearly prominent her field. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 03:35, 19 July 2013 (UTC), and I approve this message.[reply]

We don't go by the number of Google hits (see WP:GHITS in the essay Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions), particularly since her name is a fairly common one; I noted numerous references to other people named Milagros Cordero. But if you can show some links to actual significant coverage by independent reliable sources about her, I am open to changing my !vote. --MelanieN (talk) 14:50, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, FYI, at Wikipedia we go by Policies and Guidelines, not by essays (like the two you mentioned) written by independent editors. Also check "Milagros J. Cordero", not the more common "Milagros Cordero" alone. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 14:09, 23 July 2013 (UTC), and I approve this message.[reply]

Are you being serious? You're right, but WP:BIO does require significant coverage in reliable sources and Google hits do not count. SL93 (talk) 14:11, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As noted above this woman has pioneered a ground-breaking medical therapy, she is highly-respected and recognized by her professional peers, and she is clearly prominent in her field. Nelsondenis248 (talk) 15:39, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 01:44, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. She may be a fine person but she is not yet notable by Wikipedia standards. Well-intentioned but misinformed "Keep" votes by new editors that don't address the fundamental problems of notability should be disregarded by the closing administrator. Furnish the sources or stop claiming notability. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:53, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Here is a short history of this discussion so far:

09:56, 17 July 2013 - Article gets AfD'ed by Clarityfiend.
22:24, 18 July 2013 - Discussion achieves 3 Keeps (Tony the Marine, Antony Martin, PR4ever) and 1 Delete (SL93)
01:16, 19 July 2013 - Discussion listing is expanded by Gene93k to 3 additional Wikiprojects
15:39, 19 July 2013 - Discussion achieves 5 keeps (Tony the Marine, Antony Martin, PR4ever, Mercy11, NelsonDennis248) and 2 Deletes (SL93, MelanieN)
01:43, 26 July 2013 - Discussion sits idle for 1 week.
01:44, 26 July 2013 - Discussion is relisted by LFaraone stating "to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached."
04:53, 26 July 2013 - Discussion achieves 5 keeps (Tony the Marine, Antony Martin, PR4ever, Mercy11, NelsonDennis248) and 3 deletes (SL93, MelanieN, Cullen328)
08:15+, 26 July 2013- Discussion has been running for 10 days, has been audience-expanded, has been Relisted, and has 5 editors supporting a Keep and 3 editors supporting a Delete.

My name is Mercy11 (talk) 08:17, 26 July 2013 (UTC), and I approve this message.[reply]

Reply. We don't go by the number of votes, but by the soundness of the reasoning. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:18, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Cullen328 and MelanieN. There's just not enough reliable sources here to warrant an article. Despite everyone claiming notability, there's really none at all. Beerest355 Talk 14:02, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 15:41, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Andarkhan

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

Non existant place. I did not find place with such name in classifier of administrative units of Kyrgyzstan [20][21] (this classifier contains all administrative divisions and places of country). Anatoliy (Talk) 14:37, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

leaning delete There are two other towns in the area, neither with this name; spot on map just seems to be a few houses on the edge of another town. Mangoe (talk) 00:23, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 00:19, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 01:42, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kyrgyzstan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 15:46, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chil'gazy

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

Non existant place. I did not find place with such name in classifier of administrative units of Kyrgyzstan [22][23] (this classifier contains all administrative divisions and places of country). Anatoliy (Talk) 14:36, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kyrgyzstan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete Location is a blank spot on the map, all surrounding villages names are accounted for. Mangoe (talk) 00:26, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Soviet topographic maps and on Google Maps show that Chil'gazy located in Tajikistan (and given coordinates direct me there too).--Anatoliy (Talk) 12:43, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 00:22, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 01:41, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 16:46, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Michael C. Fenenbock

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

Obviously a case of WP:RESUME. No significant coverage by third-party independent media. Article creators RFIPR and Gjasper are single-purpose accounts. Overall pretty fishy. bender235 (talk) 09:37, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is well sourced and it is eligible for the notability guidelines. WisconsinBoyClevelandRocks228844 (talk) 20:09, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me, what reliable sources are referenced in this article? All I see is two YnetNews op-eds [24] [25] which the subject wrote himself, a LA Times article [26] that does not mention Fenenbock, and a PBS article [27] that does not mention Fenenbock. Other than that (which in itself is nothing already) the article only refers to unreliable sources, including Fenenbocks own company website [28]. So again, please tell me how on Earth do you consider this article "well sourced"? --bender235 (talk) 10:13, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a very good explanation but I should say well-referenced otherwise I'll say delete. WisconsinBoyClevelandRocks228844 (talk) 12:55, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom, PROMO, EBY (talk) 04:00, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 00:24, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 01:41, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - None of the sources I've found are actually reliable - just a list of unusable lists. hmssolent\^{You rang?} _{ship's log} 06:30, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 16:46, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Air Services Museum

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

The museum open and closed in 2006, which is fine if it ever was notable. However, there doesn't appear to be any reliable independent sources that indicate that it ever was notable. I am One of Many (talk) 07:08, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Okay by me. (creator) LanceBarber (talk) 08:04, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 00:26, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 01:40, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A few bits of local coverage, no evidence of wider notability. DoctorKubla (talk) 08:37, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 17:15, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Stemkoski

(Find video game sources: "Dan Stemkoski" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

(Find video game sources: "Nick Plott" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

I don't think we've ever accepted a StarCraft commentator as notable. I suppose it's possible, so I bring it here for a decision. (see adjacent afd) DGG ( talk ) 05:43, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Can I request that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nick Plott and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan Stemkoski be merged so as to minimize repetition? czar · · 05:59, 17 July 2013 (UTC)~~ ✓ czar · · 16:44, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) czar · · 06:01, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: I'm not frankly sure that they meet the notability guidelines, but I'm sure those more active in the Starcraft community might disagree. Google News only returns one article, and a regular Google search brings up his Facebook and Twitter before most anything else, so he's not widely known. I'd say keep it for now and revisit in a year. RyanGrant (talk) 07:21, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. To the nom's point, HuskyStarcraft has been accepted at AfD and Sean Plott will likely never be challenged. As for Stemkoski and Nick Plott in this AfD, they're possibly the best known of the lot. Polygon (well-respected video game site) called them "the most well-known StarCraft 2 casting duo in the world", "broadcast[ing] to millions of viewers around the world" with sponsorships and a cult following. The Polygon feature puts them both over the threshold of doubtful significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, which will only increase as the nascent field expands. If necessary, I'd additionally argue for WP:ENT #3 per the aforementioned quotes. And searches for their given names (especially as a string) will yield little since the commentators are primarily known by nicknames "Artosis" (Stemkoski) and "Tasteless" (Plott). They're also based in Korea, but I don't have the prowess to find reliable Korean gaming sources. czar · · 03:23, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is there much beyond the Polygon source though? Usually it takes more than one source, even if its reliable and in-depth... Sergecross73 msg me 13:24, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dedicated coverage other than the P feature include [29] and [30], and as mentioned in the article, 'The Verge's Paul Miller referred to Tastosis as "the primary practitioners of StarCraft casting".'[31] There's other coverage on their prominence, but these are the articles about the commentators in specific from American secondary sources. (I'm not familiar with the "reliable" eSports-dedicated sites or their Korean analogues.) czar · · 16:20, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Find video game sources: "Tasteless StarCraft" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

(Find video game sources: "Artosis" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

(Find video game sources: "Tastosis" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:49, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 01:39, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 17:14, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MTF Ltd

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

The company is not notable and I can not find anything to indicate otherwise. NealeFamily (talk) 09:57, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There was a fraud case, but the case wasn't started by the company nor does it show notability for the company. I found no significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 00:10, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 20:53, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 01:36, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. 3 out of 5 references are from the company itself, the other 2 prove existence, not notability. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:54, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:55, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Haplogroup G (Y-DNA) by country

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

purpotedly a reasonable article, based on science, (by the title) but the disclaimer None of the sampling done by research studies shown here would qualify as true random sampling in the first paragraph gives the game away Crusoe8181 (talk) 11:11, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - just a list of research data, all from WP:PRIMARY. Agricolae (talk) 23:45, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 01:29, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It shows how many people were sampled in each nation. This helps make sense of the research published. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, meant for education, not just a collection of popular culture articles. We don't just include things the entertainment driven modern media talks about. Remember, the guidelines are suggestions, as the disclaimer at the top of their pages say. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. A founding policy of Wikipedia is Wikipedia:Ignore all rules, "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." Policies must always be followed, while guidelines can be ignored. Dream Focus 10:19, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A core content policy is WP:NOR. This article is nothing but OR. It extracts and reports data directly from primary publications, most of which draw no conclusions specifically about haplogroup G. Ref 2 is perhaps one of the more extreme examples, but is illustrative of the process - the page lifts data from a supplementary data table not even part of the formal published (and peer reviewed) paper. This is WP:RAWDATA, an excessive listing of statistics drawn by OR from PRIMARY sources. Agricolae (talk) 14:52, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is reliable, a lot of effort has been devoted in its development, and it is based on 116 scientific sources.--Maulucioni (talk) 20:40, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An argument based on effort is just WP:MERCY; the fact that it has 116 scientific sources is sort of making my point - it is pure data mining. Agricolae (talk) 21:15, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is not yet usual here for this sort of topic, but the role of an encyclopedia does include the compilation of data. In fact, it is usual in many other fields. All our articles on Bibliography of a writer, or compositions of a musician, are also the compilation of sourced data. All our articles on population of an area, or cities in a region, are also the compilation of sourced data. The alternative would be to integrate it into the main article, but just as we do separate out bibliographies and discographies for really notable creative people, this is probably best handled separately. A paragraph of context would be useful, including the map from the main article. This doesn;t violate WP:NOTY. A separate article on the values for each country would, just as a separate article for the vote in each electoral unit of a general election. But an article on the election giving the statistics is appropriate, and we always add these numbers. Similarly here. DGG ( talk ) 01:42, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What am I missing here? It's raw data, representing neither a complete result (like an election tally or a discography) nor a statistically rigorous outcome (as in, say, an election poll), just a random sample of insufficient size or depth for the numbers to be meaningful. They are individual scientific outcomes, not reliable reported scientific results. To rip these out of their context and present them as meaningful scientific outcomes is flawed on several levels. Agricolae (talk) 02:13, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let me carry the analogy of election numbers further to try better to indicate part of the problem here (I agree fully with Crusoe's comment below as well). If a TV station were to interview 4 students at a local college, and find 3 of the 4 in favor of candidate X, this would be reliable information, as far as it goes, but not noteworthy. To then report that 75% of college students in the state favor candidate X based on these interviews would be completely invalid. That is what is being done here for many of the countries listed, reporting numbers from a small, non-random, non-statistically significant sample and drawing conclusions about the entire country that the authors of the studies themselves do not draw. Agricolae (talk) 11:14, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by nominator And haplogroups do not fall neatly within 2013 state boundaries; those are ALMOST irrelevant to haplogroup distribution. Perhaps we could have haplogroup distributions according to 1513 state boundaries; distribution within the Roman Empire 313. How many in San Marino, again??; is our readership agog with anticipation? Crusoe8181 (talk) 09:31, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Very useful. Concerning the random sampling, it's OK since we don't have anything better. Moreover, these samples are presented in very respected scientific journals. twitter.com/YOMALSIDOROFF (talk) 12:53, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is an important and scientifically justifiable list. My very best wishes (talk) 21:53, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 16:47, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline of library usage

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

I submitted this article for deletion. It contains original research, POV, and weak citations, leading to a factually inaccurate conclusion. For an alternative perspective, see more recent statistics suggesting that libraries served 297.6 million (equivalent to 96.4%) Americans in 2013 (source), and 80% of Americans between 16 and 29 see libraries as "very important" (source). I tried to think of some ways to repair this article, but the premise itself is flawed. Libraryowl (talk) 03:44, 16 July 2013 (UTC)— Libraryowl (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Neutral - a notable topic, but article is plagued by WP:POV issues. An ideal article here would discuss sources that claim a decline as well as those that refute such a decline; a WP:TNT deleting may be in order, but I'll see what others have to say first. Ansh666 06:04, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, there's support for WP:TNT delete, but given DGG's wall of text below (which I actually read, by the way) I'll remain neutral. Ansh666 00:42, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support deletion: The content of the current article does not seem redeemable. Too much OR, POV, SYNTH, ESSAY, and just-plain-incorrectness. —BarrelProof (talk) 07:08, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support deletion: The article has misconceptions and inaccuracies. There is a long discussion of use patterns in academic libraries by Walt Crawford at http://citesandinsights.info/civ13i3.pdf. In addition, the article title implies use in all libraries, but the article itself discusses academic libraries almost exclusively. Crawford has written also about public library use statistics. (Note: I am the state data coordinator for Louisiana, and am responsible for submitting public library statistics to the IMLS) Michael Golrick (talk) 12:50, 16 July 2013 (UTC) ~~— Mgolrick (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.~~ The (spa) tag left on Mgolrick's post would seem to be in error as the account has edited 10 different articles over the space of 8 years. Shearonink (talk) 06:00, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The current draft requires improvement, not deletion, per our editing policy. The worst case would be merger into a section of a larger article such as Library#Usage, for which additional citations are requested. But there's a lot more to say beyond the narrow perspective of American librarians. For example, there are widespread library closures in the UK and that aspect is certainly notable. Warden (talk) 16:36, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the closure of UK libraries is a noteworthy issue. If the article is retained, it should give information about the status of libraries around the world. But while there are a number of reasons for the closure of UK libraries, this article suggests that overall library usage is declining due to technological change. I don't see the support for that premise, either in the article or the available statistics. Technology is affecting libraries in complex and dynamic ways, and I'm not sure we can draw a conclusion yet about what that means for physical library buildings, academic and university libraries or the role of the library in a community. I'm not even sure these issues should be addressed in a single article. There are so many changes to be made--starting with the title--that WP:TNT seems to be in order. Libraryowl (talk) 18:01, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:TNT is not policy — not even close. The author of that personal essay created few articles - just feeble stuff like Ghastly - and was sent packing from the project by arbcom. If people think they can do better than this current content then there's nothing stopping them from rolling up their sleeves and getting on with it. Warden (talk) 23:47, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is indeed somewhat of an essay, but it's a sourced essay, not an opinion piece. (1) I do not see OR. It explains what is happening, basing every paragraph on a good source. There's a misunderstanding here: Every general article is to some extent OR and SYNTH, because the selection of what information to present is a form of research, and organizing it is a form of synthesis. This applies, for example, to every historical article in WP, or every article on a concept from the humanities or social sciences. If they do not represent an appropriate selection and organization of material, they're a collection of random facts. If they do, it inevitably leads in a direction. The sort of OR and SYNTH we prohibit is where it goes beyond the sources. (2) And it's not a bad summary, much more coherent that most WP articles. The key problems are that too many of the sources are outdated (most of the article was written in 2009), and the writing is a little too much in the academic style. It would benefit from a clearer distinction of the different types of libraries and of different countries, though the trend is common across all libraries (primarily, for the rather obvious reason that there are now alternatives--after all, what are we doing here at WP if not producing an alternative?) (3) A better presentation would need great expansion, and an analysis of the differences and the variation, and the measures taken to try to deal with this. The situation is not really the same as 4 years ago, any more than the internet is the same. (4) I will be glad to have a professional discussion with Mgolrick why he uses the term "why" rather than "incomplete" --it may be different perspectives, as I'm an academic librarian, albeit with my major experience in one of the most traditional of all academic libraries, and I know what we do is very different than 30 years ago, and our role in some ways less central & more easily substituted. I think he means that the traditional measures do not necessarily apply, and that the role is still important, and it is possible to show it. It may be better to call it a change in the pattern of use rather than a decline I suggest what he do is add the material he thinks should be added. Crawford is a very good source, though he is , like this article, more interested in academic than public libraries. I consider his blog postings as authoritative as any conventionally published source, though it may be difficult to convince some WPedians of that.(4a) Libraryowl' says he sees no way to improve the article, which I do not understand. As always, one updates and adds correct material, fairly presented. I wonder if the meaning is he sees no way to discuss the material to reach the desired conclusion, since his perspective is not altogether supported by an actual reading of the facts. That 96.4% is not 96% using libraries, but 96% living in areas that support public libraries. And many more people think anything "important" than actually use it significantly. There's a figure missing from the IMLS report--the relative borrowing of print and nonprint materials. It does give the increase in children's use, but doesn't explicitly state whether there's an increase in adult use. (deriving that figure from the summary report would be SYNTH, so I don't give it) Librarians, just as other professions, have developed considerable skill at presenting data in a way that is technically accurate but not necessarily valid. The report is honest enough to give one key point of perspective: use always increases in a depression as people cannot afford alternatives and have more free time due to greater unemployment. It also very rightly emphasises how a key social function of public libraries has become the provision of computer services to those who cannot afford them otherwise. (5) This problem of being outdated is present across almost all of WP except current politics and sport and popular culture. Nobody thought 11 years ago about the fact encyclopedias need periodic major revision, and that it is much less exciting to do this & therefore less attractive to volunteers. This was the main problem with print encyclopedias --there was no practical way of revising between major new editions, and the new editions were such great work that they were rare, and usually the update was inadequate. We've solved the problem of minor updating of popular topics, but not of rewriting the basic material. (6) The problem about being based on only some countries and only some of the possible situations is also universal in WP. It is a very rare article which gives equally appropriate coverage to both the US and the UK, to say nothing about the other major English speaking countries, or especially the rest of the world. DGG ( talk ) 23:47, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To be convincing, the page would have to establish the following:

1. Library usage is consistently declining across all types of libraries and among all types of users (note that the article itself contradicts this claim). [Added later: If updated, the article should also establish that the decline in usage has not stabilized or changed since the article was written, and/or that if the trend has changed, a decline in academic library usage between 2000-2009 is independently notable Libraryowl (talk) 15:11, 17 July 2013 (UTC)][reply]

2. This decline is due primarily to technological change, rather than a combination of factors (for example--but not limited to--the financial strain the recession has had on municipal budgets).

3. A decline in something like door count or print circulation is not being "made up for" by an increase in the usage of new or different library services (that is, it would have to establish what is meant by "decline in usage").

4. A decline in usage at a rural public library in Alabama, a university library in Pennsylvania, the British Library, and the Library of Congress all have the same basic cause.

5. That all of this is notable enough that the topic deserves its own article, rather than incorporation into an article that includes a) a wide range of library statistics, or b) a subtopic on about the changing role of public/academic/UK/whatever libraries.

It may indeed be that library usage is declining due to technological change. I don't believe that's the case, but I'm not making encyclopedic claims here, merely asserting that the article's fundamental assumptions can and should be contested. Right now, the last section of the article openly contradicts the introduction. Even those of us who would like to retain the article admit that (some?) library usage has increased. That means the picture is more complex than a "decline of library usage." Incidentally, I see Wikipedia as something you access from a library, not something that is a replacement for a library, but I'm happy to admit that's POV. If someone would like to take a crack at improving this article, I'm willing to keep an open mind. However, if it's not worth the time and effort to fix, then I still think there's a case for deletion here. Right now this is the first page that comes up when people Google "decline in library usage." I will be the first to admit that this issue hits close to home, but I'm uncomfortable with an incomplete article being used as evidence for a decline in libraries. Libraryowl (talk) 02:07, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is a well-sourced article on an important topic. It deals with trends over the last two decades that academic librarians have frequently noted. The complain that it reads like an essay is a misinterpretation. In my view "essay" (per Wiki rules) = personal opinions; that is not the case here. As DGG point out, the need for updating to the most recent data is a problem for all of the older articles at Wikipedia and is a poor reason to delete an article. Rjensen (talk) 04:37, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rjensen, I notice that you substantially altered and removed remarks by several other people in this edit. That is not appropriate. Please do not do that again. —BarrelProof (talk) 05:29, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which would be fine if the article was "decline in usage of (some? American?) academic libraries." I object to the idea that outdated resources are a minor issue. If the more recent data contradicts the article's premise, or paints a more complex picture, then the article itself is inaccurate. If overall library usage has increased due to the recession (which is actually asserted in the article), then the article is inaccurate. And if academic libraries have different usage patterns than other kinds of libraries, then the article is inaccurate. Finally, if fewer people are using libraries because hours and services have been cut, then the article is accurate but incomplete. A more complete article would be a different article: different title, different organization, different topics. At that point, the difference between editing it and deleting it is basically semantics; at least this way there's a formal discussion. Also, deleting my comments: not cool. P.S. While I nominated this article for deletion, I am also open to merge, as my comments above reflect. Libraryowl (talk) 13:55, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Decline of library usage has some instructive comments about the viability of the article that are one & two years old. At the very least the article is mis-titled. More appropriate titles would be "Academic library usage" (OT, but the Academic library article needs some help too...) or "Patterns of modern library usage" or "Technology & libraries" or whatever...perhaps merging the idea of the content (necessitating a re-write, especially of the lede) within other library-focussed article/s is possible. Shearonink (talk) 18:17, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All problems indicated in the nomination can be solved by editing, therefore they have to be solved by editing, per our deletion policy: AFD is not cleanup. Topic is notable and well documented in sources. -- cyclopia^speak! 15:44, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the topic itself has received significant coverage in reliable sources. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:54, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - From just today (July 20), for example: "Mayor Of Miami-Dade Thinks Libraries Are Outdated (Video)" http://samuel-warde.com/2013/07/mayor-of-miami-dade-thinks-libraries-outdated/ Opening paragraph: "Miami-Dade Mayor Carlos Gimenez commented to a WPLG-ABC 10 reporter: 'People have said that the age of the library is probably, you know, ending.'" --Lawfare (talk) 03:32, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Other people have mentioned the problems with the name of the article. At the very least it needs to be changed to "Academic library usage", since public library usage has not declined, a Jan. 2013 Pew study says, for example, "Overall, 52% of recent library users say their use of the library in the past five years has not changed to any great extent. At the same time, 26% of recent library users say their library use has increased and 22% say their use has decreased." Olegkagan (talk) 19:03, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 01:27, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the concept has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources and has been the subject of specific academic studies. Questions as to article name should be resolved on the article's talk page. Not liking that there has been a decline in library use is not the same as that concept not being notable. Stalwart111 07:36, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 21:18, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Little Flower Forane Church, Nilambur

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

"Little Flower Forane Church doesn't have any written History" begins this article. Therefore all of this about the church is unverifiable and fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines. In fact this article was declined at AfC. Most of the incidental, tangential and unrelated information is sourced to the church directory or website. Sionk (talk) 18:57, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This church is non-notable. A Google Books search only bringing up one result with that book being The Catholic Directory of India, published in 1969, also points to not being notable. SL93 (talk) 22:11, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete: This church is one of the most important Catholic churches in Nilambur. So, saying that church is non-notable is not true. The article is now edited and it is cleaned by removing the information that doesn't have reliable source. The church doesn't own a website. The brief history(newly added) is created by collecting relevant information from various websites that gives allusion about the church. And among them most important one is the website of Manathavady Diocese.

Joseph 11:27, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 01:20, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at first I thought this may merely be a terrible article on a notable subject, but after some digging it looks like that isn't the case. Coverage is primary, directory listings, or both, which just isn't enough. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:03, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looks interesting, but I'm not finding any book or news sources, other than The Catholic Directory of India of 1969, noted above (also 1984 and 2005 editions, without the word "Forane"). There was apparently a link to a Times of India story, but that link is dead, cannot be recovered by searching, and was never properly cited. Offline sources might exist, but it's really up to the article author to find them (this should have been done when the article failed at AfC). At present the article seems to fail WP:GNG. -- 202.124.89.3 (talk) 01:24, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 09:47, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Designit

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

No significant coverage by independent third party sources. Wkharrisjr (talk) 19:57, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:57, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:57, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:57, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 21:39, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom: the page indeed doesn't seem to cite any significant coverage by independent third-party sources. Dear nominator: PROD might have worked too. :) Cheers, —Unforgettableid (talk) 04:27, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 01:18, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:27, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Chavez Moran

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

Fails WP:BASIC. Promotional article largely written by the subject's PR. Source 1 is ok (appearance on a top 100 list) but not enough on its own. Source 2 does not mention the subject. Source 3 is a blog of a press release. Sources 4 and 5 are self-published. Logical Cowboy (talk) 16:51, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Meets the guidelines of WP:ANYBIO. CNN's list of "The Most Important People in Mexico" included subject for two consecutive years: 2009 and 2010. Edyang (talk) 23:15, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The above editor has a rather large COI on this subject, which he has not disclosed here. Logical Cowboy (talk) 23:28, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did not originally create this article, rather just added in information to bring it up to date and improve its accuracy. Based on Logical Cowboy's feedback, I removed links and sections while adding in two references from Forbes.com and Milenio.com. Regardless, it is hard to deny that Mr. Moran is a subject of importance based on these references. Will continue to clean up the article based on feedback or allow other editors to do so if COI prevents me.Edyang (talk) 07:27, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 21:44, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - there is some coverage, but I'm not sure it rises the level expected for a BLP. Much of the article's content is completely unsourced because the subject simply hasn't received enough coverage for things like his higher education to be verifiable. Some of the sources themselves are a bit weak too - I'm not sure that a very short profile in a list of "The most powerful investors in tourism" counts for much. It's coverage, but probably not "significant coverage". I'd probably need to see one more solid source to get me over the line. The paid editing conflict of interest is obviously a concern too and it probably doesn't help that we've had a lot of that here lately. I remain open to being convinced, but at the moment... Stalwart111 23:22, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 01:17, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate Stalwart111's input, and I would submit for consideration that the fact he is mentioned in Forbes, CNN and Milenio (a major daily newspaper in Mexico) is sufficient proof of his significance. Also added a reference from the major daily newspaper in Puerto Vallarta, Mexico.Edyang (talk) 23:29, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The key here is "significant coverage". The Forbes source link is broken (and I couldn't find a working link to that article) and the CNN listing certainly wouldn't be considered "significant coverage". Being "mentioned" in papers doesn't count for much. Stalwart111 00:51, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Forbes link is working for me: http://www.forbes.com.mx/sites/los-inversionistas-mas-poderosos-en-turismo/. That must count as significant coverage as the title of that article is "The Most Powerful Investors in Tourism" when translated to English. Shouldn't it count for something when you make a shortlist of Forbes as the most powerful anything in any industry?Edyang (talk) 22:53, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edyang, it must be very difficult for you to judge whether it is significant coverage, given your close COI relation to the subject of this article. In the Forbes piece, Chavez is listed eighth, and the paragraph describing his activities is all of 82 words. Logical Cowboy (talk) 01:40, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the link is working now like it was originally. As above, in my original comment, that article is probably one of the only ones with coverage and I'm still not sure it's "significant coverage". Maybe. It certainly "counts for something", sure, but on its own it probably isn't enough because we still need coverage in multiple sources. I'm probably still where I was, tough others may disagree. Stalwart111 01:49, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Users interested in performing a merge should contact me on my talk page. --BDD (talk) 21:20, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Korean genome

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

This orphan article is simply indicating that two Korean's have had their genomes sequenced but this is non-notable, as a thousand people have had their genomes sequenced (and given the sheer number of genomes that have been sequenced, including the individual details in an article like Human genome or Personal genomics would be WP:UNDUE), and there is no independent sourcing that isn't OR. Human genomes represent something of a continuum, not discreet national or ethic entities. The name carries with it the inaccurate implication that the 'Korean genome' is some distinct entity - that there is something fundamentally different about the genomes of Korean nationals, as opposed to just being human genomes that happen to be from Koreans. This is not a likely search term so no redirect is necessary, else we would have to create redirects for every national and ethnic group. Agricolae (talk) 22:12, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Agricolae (talk) 18:24, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Delete : Human_genome#Genomic_variation_in_humans is where this material should go. Landmark papers like this ought to be mentioned somewhere. However the notion of "Korean genome" is silly. There may be a point in an article about genomic studies on the Korean population (e.g. [32]), but that would still not be a "Korean genome" article. -- cyclopia^speak! 13:59, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is there to merge though? The current article is about the accomplishment, who did it and where they deposited the data, not about what was learned. There may be a place somewhere for what they found out about it, but not who or how or where and that is all that is in the current article to potentially merge. While at the time it was done it was an interesting addition to the existing body of 4 genomes, it was even then, arguably, JAG (just another genome) and it certainly is now. I don't see how the specific content of this article belongs in any other page we have. Agricolae (talk) 15:23, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is some sourceable info here and there that maybe, maybe could be somewhere in human genome. That page badly needs an history paragraph, and a couple notes from this page would belong there. -- cyclopia^speak! 15:55, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I won't argue that giving human genome a historical context would be useful (although it has bigger problem right now with an editor convinced that any used of the phrase 'the human genome' biases the article in favor of 'big science'). I am just not sure that from a historical perspective, by the time you get to the fifth genome sequenced each one continues to be individually noteworthy. Agricolae (talk) 18:32, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understand where you are coming from. But as a rule of thumb, if they get coverage in the media and are published on Nature or Science, I'd mention them for sure. -- cyclopia^speak! 18:38, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And I get where you are coming from, but the real gauge of noteworthiness is how it is viewed in secondary sources. Do modern reviews of personal genomics find this paper worthy of specifically mention? I don't know. Agricolae (talk) 18:46, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is quite cited. I don't know where it is discussed at most length, but you can find quickly that it's discussed here and there, not just cited.-- cyclopia^speak! 19:09, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is, but citation doesn't quite equate with noteworthiness, because 1) when I would prepare a paper for submission, we would sometimes give a list of cites ten long for a particular point, some of which were very bad papers in extremely obscure journals, simply because a 'rule' of such manuscripts is that if you don't just cite a review, you cite absolutely everything relevant, not simply the ones you consider most important; and 2) it could be that it is being cited just for the methods, and not for the result or even the subject matter. Without looking at every paper, you can't tell. That being said, I will tentatively accept your view, but the best way to deal with including it at a place like human genome is to provide appropriate (for the page where it is going) text and the cite on that page, not to merge this page containing text that will almost certainly not be appropriate for the target. It is best done from scratch, without the merge. Agricolae (talk) 21:53, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 01:16, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. None of the existing references/links are appropriate third-party sources that establish notability. This paper is relevant, but it is a primary source. The 2009 Nature paper is a primary source. There are a number of papers referring to the "Korean genome epidemiology study" (KoGES), but it is unclear if this study is related to KOREF/SJK – I suspect not. Overall, there is inadequate coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:56, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge The title of the article is misleading. There is no "Korean genome" and to suggest there is one seems almost to hint of racism, as if Koreans were a different sub-species or whatever. At the very least retitle so it's clear the topic is the event of sequencing a person's genome who happened to be from Korea. Merge to other article on the history of human genome sequencing is also fine, or delete and ignore as a minor event. Kitfoxxe (talk) 17:37, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the notion of a Korean genome is not entirely silly, if you read the hook, but this ain't that article. Bearian (talk) 17:30, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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